User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Testable God

I'm having a debate with a christian who was my high school science teacher. I asked him: Is the Christian God testable? Is there anyway for a human to detect or understand a God exist via brain cognition. I think a yes or no answer will suffice. His answer: Two questions. No, God is not empirically testable. Second Question - yes

I shouldn't have asked the second question because it's a minor loop hole. I believe he thinks that god exist in the mind only. I don't see how this can lead to a Christian god. I don't know how he would be able to get this information. The presupposition that this god is the christian one and not the muslim god. He says Jesus is his savior. Where or how could he get this information if god doesn't manifest in the physical world at least once. Basically, he's making up his own rules and they are bullshit. It's what he must do as a scientist to hang on to the belief. He's created some messed up brand of Epistemological solipsism. PLease , help me with the second question. The testable one, is easy to hand him his hat, but the 2nd one is more challenging. Thanks William

If god is perceptible, then god is impacting the universe in some way. That should be detectable and testable. If god really is impacting people's brains, then we should be able to monitor that somehow. Then we'd have to explain why we think that brain effect is a god and not simply someone's brain doing what a brain does.

William Said: Where or how could he get this information if god doesn't manifest in the physical world at least once.

Tracie Said: If god is perceptible, then god is impacting the universe in some way.

Chuck Johnson Says: Yes, God is perceptible and he does manifest all of the time. His manifestations are commonplace. This is what I know to be true about the God that I know to be true.

Having said that, the God that I know to be true is a fictional character like Tom Sawyer or King Lear. Tom and King Lear manifest all of the time. Just go to amazon .com to verify that they are still making a real and demonstrable impact on the human race. See how much they are going for in paperback.

Is the foregoing my idea of a joke? - - - No, not at all. I am serious.

It occurred to me that William and Tracie were not beginning their consideration of this question based upon a solid foundation. What God does the science teacher believe in?

If the science teacher believes in the same God that I do, then you can count him as an atheist.

From the few details that William gives, I doubt that the science teacher would give us a story that would make him either a believer in the old testament God or an atheist. Religious folk (especially ones who claim to be scientists) are busy these days reinventing and then reinventing again the traditional God and traditional christianity.

Yes, I do see a great deal of ignorance, dishonesty, and excuse-making in these efforts to rescue and to preserve the "faith of our fathers". As a general thing, I do not like ignorance, dishonesty, or excuse-making.

However, I see the situation as an affirmation that scientific and rational views are making the Faithful uncomfortable with the lack of believability in traditional religion. When you ask religious folks today, what God do they believe in, you get more and more answers about a God who is "energy" or a "spirituality" or a "universal vibration".

Christianity becomes ever more attenuated and insipid.

Tracie, you are probably saying that you would like something cleaner, more honest, and faster - - - more like what happened to Matt D.

I welcome the rise of logic and reason no matter which way it comes. The human race is going through withdrawal, and in some details, it is not a pretty sight.

I admire so much the work that you and your buddies in Austin do.

Is it possible to detect consciousness or the vibration of atoms in our body? Is is possible to detect our body aging, that is with out years going by?

Wink, wink! Patrick said, "Is it possible to detect consciousness or the vibration of atoms in our body? Is is possible to detect our body aging, that is with out years going by?"

Your not kidding either! Ha! Ha!

It is possible to detect things that are really there. Consciousness, atoms and aging are really there. What is not possible is to detect imaginary things that are not really there.

Linda Said: What is not possible is to detect imaginary things that are not really there.

Linda, your sentence is sufficiently non-specific that it is both true and false at the same time.

A Story: Alex lives in a high-rise building and he develops a psychotic disorder. He tells you that he sees Satan emerging from under his bed, and clutching a knife. You know Alex and his history of mental problems, and you have very good reason to believe that he is not lying to you. You know that he has become delusional. You and I know that it is very unlikely that there is a Satan and knife in the room that are made of solid (or liquid, or gas) material.

Both of these imaginary things (Satan and knife) are very detectable. Alex tells us about them, and is visibly panicked.

1 Alex might be killed if the fear of Satan precipitates a heart attack.

2 Alex might be killed if he jumps out of the window to get away from Satan.

3 Alex will not be killed by being stabbed by Satan.

All three of these Satans are detectable, yet they are imaginary things.

We resolve this paradox by using clear thinking and careful choice of words. Your thoughts, and the words that you use to represent those thoughts can be critically important to communication or to failed communication.

1 Alex might be killed if the fear of the delusion of Satan precipitates a heart attack.

(And let's add the words "the delusion of " before Satan 2 and Satan 3)

Now we can see that "the delusion of Satan" is a real and detectable thing. We also have a strong implication that "Satan" is an imaginary thing, and he is therefore not detectable.

We ran into trouble earlier when the word "Satan" simultaneously represented "Satan" and "the delusion of Satan".

George Orwell's word "doublethink" describes this problem.

Also, remember that when you try to communicate using words, the process is not a perfect "thought transplant" from one mind to another. When you turn your thoughts into words, the process is not perfect. Do not believe that your thoughts are the same as the words that you use to represent your thoughts. We try to come as close as we can, but the process is not perfect.

When someone reads your words, and then converts your words into his own thoughts, the same problem shows up: the translation is not perfect.

Church Johnson said, "Linda Said: What is not possible is to detect imaginary things that are not really there."

Church Johnson said, "Linda, your sentence is sufficiently non-specific that it is both true and false at the same time."

It's only non-specific if you leave half of it out so it can be taken out of context, a little trick you've tried for years, it's the earmarking of a phony. Let's see what it was really about - shall we?

Patrick said, "Is it possible to detect consciousness or the vibration of atoms in our body? Is is possible to detect our body aging, that is with out years going by?"

Linda said, "It is possible to detect things that are really there. Consciousness, atoms and aging are really there. What is not possible is to detect imaginary things that are not really there."

There is quite a difference when you know what someone really said, isn't there, and this is not misinterpretation; it's deliberate.

In fact it's not possible to detect an imaginary friend, even though it's possible to observe what happens to someone who is delusional, you are not detecting the actual delusion. Just for the benefit of those who don't know the difference between fantasy, science fiction and myths from reality; it's not the same thing pal..

Furthermore, atheists don't have to censor their replies in order to avoid material that is objectionable, or offensive to those who are delusional, or as crazy as a shit house rat. Maybe there are people who don't know the difference in something that was made up in their heads and real stuff but that's not our problem. what is real is still there even if you stop believing it's there. It's not something you imagined.

Church Johnson, "A Story: Alex lives in a high-rise building and he develops a psychotic disorder. He tells you that he sees Satan emerging from under his bed, and clutching a knife. You know Alex and his history of mental problems, and you have very good reason to believe that he is not lying to you. You know that he has become delusional. You and I know that it is very unlikely that there is a Satan and knife in the room that are made of solid (or liquid, or gas) material."

Why is Alex more psychotic or mentally ill than millions of people who think there is a Satan? Your example is based on assumptions made without evidence. Science is definitely not based on assumptions. We know that the brain is real and the electronic impulses are real. The "hypothesis" that someone's imaginary friend could be detected is based on an unsupported assumption that it is not possible or even plausible. These kinds of arguments have their origins in theology not science, it's Ray Comfort-ish evangelizing, nobody can know reality except through divine revelation. Unfortunately, what is true or real, isn't based on unproven, unfounded and unrealistic claims about someone's personal fantasizing.

Church Johnson said, "Both of these imaginary things (Satan and knife) are very detectable. Alex tells us about them, and is visibly panicked. 1 Alex might be killed if the fear of Satan precipitates a heart attack. 2 Alex might be killed if he jumps out of the window to get away from Satan. 3 Alex will not be killed by being stabbed by Satan. All three of these Satans are detectable, yet they are imaginary things."

Where do you suppose Alex got the idea that there was a Satan? Maybe it would have been a good idea to have told Alex the truth a long time ago. See there, religion does cause harm, it killed Alex.

All believers are affirming the validity of (Satan) on the basis of an authority figure, because there is no evidence of any supernatural being (good or evil. Their belief is not based on evidence or actual knowledge. Myths and fantasy make sense to those who have been terrorized with demons and devils by an authority figure who makes them believe in a reality that never existed anywhere.

Furthermore, I've never heard of anyone dying from a fatal delusion (not that it really would matter) it still wouldn't prove a thing. This is a feeble attempt at trying to evade the actual subject. A delusion is not real scientific evidence of anything and it's not information - this won't work. What does work is that there is plenty of real evidence that discredits belief in Satan.

This is nothing more than a believer's spin on something that doesn't require any research. The objective of these idiotic waste of time fantasy analogies with a supernatural spin on it, is to impress really ignorant people, who may have been terrorized by the Satan myth (which came from a misinterpreted word) to get back on their trembling knees.

Church Johnson said, "We resolve this paradox by using clear thinking and careful choice of words. Your thoughts, and the words that you use to represent those thoughts can be critically important to communication or to failed communication."

On the contrary, maybe crazies shouldn't put their delusional crap on an atheist message board because I'm pretty sure they will not like what they are going to hear and this is not a paradox, it's crap. This topic was never about what a delusional psychotic thinks, we can all talk about things that we know something about. It's the things that nobody knows about, imaginary things, that we can't discuss. We can talk about the weather or we can talk about international finance; but nobody can talk about a subject that nobody has any actual information about!

Church Johnson said, "1 Alex might be killed if the fear of the delusion of Satan precipitates a heart attack. (And let's add the words "the delusion of " before Satan 2 and Satan 3)"

What do you think you are proving with these off topic weird ramblings? What someone reacts to (in any way) whether it's real or unreal has nothing to do with determining that it is real.

Church Johnson said, "Now we can see that "the delusion of Satan" is a real and detectable thing. We also have a strong implication that "Satan" is an imaginary thing, and he is therefore not detectable."

A reaction is real or observable, but not the hallucination, and that does nothing to establish that anything else is real.

Church Johnson said, "We ran into trouble earlier when the word "Satan" simultaneously represented "Satan" and "the delusion of Satan"."

Lucifer is a Misinterpreted Word. There was never any entity known as Lucifer the Devil or Satan, and the word Lucifer in the King James Version is a misinterpretation of a word. There are many misinterpretations of Hebrew words and meanings and "Lucifer" is just another one. The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as the Latin word Lucifer. This misinterpretation is why Lucifer is thought to be the name for Satan. However, in Isaiah 14 the prophet is taunting the king of Babylon in the figurative language of the Hebrews a star was used to describe an illustrious monarch and the King referred to is the King of Babylon who surpassed all other kings in royal splendor. The passage is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend. The term "a star" meaning a brilliant monarch was translated into Latin as "Lucifer" by Christian writers who identified Lucifer with Satan. According to Luke 10:18 (Lucifer fell from heaven like lighting) consequently, Lucifer became one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology.

Church Johnson said, "George Orwell's word "doublethink" describes this problem."

According to George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four: "Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

Orwell explains in the book, the Party had control and power over the people by the humiliation and degradation of its people and exposing them to constant propaganda. It's like the terrorizing and propagandizing by Christianity and BB (Big Brother) always watching. Doublethink means tampering with reality but through an act of doublethink this knowledge is removed. That's how a lie becomes the truth or reality. It is through a complex system of reality control.

Reality control meant that the population could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday language and thought. Newspeak was the method for controlling thought through language; Doublethink was the method of controlling thought directly.

The argument that a delusion is something real is a "straw man" argument. The argument comes to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he set up himself. A delusion can never be anything tangible or real in and of itself, it's a "straw man" argument. It's a claim made without evidence based on nothing and presented without a shred of sound scientific or provable evidence.

Church Johnson said, "Also, remember that when you try to communicate using words, the process is not a perfect "thought transplant" from one mind to another. When you turn your thoughts into words, the process is not perfect. Do not believe that your thoughts are the same as the words that you use to represent your thoughts. We try to come as close as we can, but the process is not perfect."

That's based on the assumption that everyone is trying to tell the truth, when we all know that it would be a disaster for certain people to ever tell the public the truth. People can say darn near anything that nobody can prove isn't true about any number of absurdities.

Church Johnson said, "When someone reads your words, and then converts your words into his own thoughts, the same problem shows up: the translation is not perfect."

When someone copies exactly what you have said, and doesn't leave anything out, it is what you said. I guess that's as good an excuse as any when someone posts things that are proven to be false. Furthermore, your same old arguments surfaces again and again; it's an attempt to dictate to others what they can say "because it's a "misinterpretation" of your proselytizing.

Religious beliefs depend on this kind of hokum because they can't prove anything they believe is real or true.

Linda Said: It's only non-specific if you leave half of it out so it can be taken out of context, a little trick you've tried for years, it's the earmarking of a phony. Let's see what it was really about - shall we?

This is a little trick that I have tried for years ?

How many years ?

I have been posting messages on this forum since August, 2012.

My name is Chuck Johnson. My Zip Code is 18951.

What is your name and your Zip Code ?

So who are you ?

Of all the gin joints In all the towns In all the world She walks into mine.

20,000 people gathering in a church on a weekend should be a detectable event. What brings them together every week? I understand that they arrive in cars and walk in on their legs driven by chemical reactions in their muscles. That answer I know and it does not seem to make sense.

And what does brain do, by the way? Again, I understand, it has chemical reactions and sends electrical impulses between cells that move our limbs and tongue to produce motion and sounds. What is, then, "a thought"? What do we mean when we say that a brain "thinks"? Whence come the ideas of joy, suffering, love, value, or freedom? What are those? What are the material equivalents of these concepts? If love or freedom exist, they should be affecting human brains in testable and measurable ways. Right? "Then we'd have to explain why we think that brain effect is love or freedom and no simply a brain doing what brain does."

What do you see as you look at your computer screen? I understand, you see pixels lighting up to form shapes and characters projected to the retina of the eye and transformed into electrical impulses conveyed to the brain. Or do you see words? What are words? What is meaning in materialistic definition?

What I mean to say is that humans use metaphors as shortcuts to describe complex concepts and processes. These concepts do not always have equivalents in material world. "Jesus is my savior" is such a metaphor. It means that the idea of Jesus makes me behave in a certain way which, I believe, is beneficial for me and society. I have broken down a very complex metaphor into many smaller ones. Much work needs to be done to explain what this idea of Jesus means and how it affects my brain to change my behavior, etc.

I feel like rewriting a program which in most software languages consists of one line "print 'Hello, world!'" in assembly language and having to program each pixel on the screen to produce characters. Most programmers cannot do this any more. So, most religious people cannot explain "Jesus is my savior" in terms of protons, electrons, neurons, electrical impulses, and chemical reactions.

AG said, "And what does brain do, by the way?"

I don't know, what does "brain do?"

AG said, " Most programmers cannot do this any more. So, most religious people cannot explain "Jesus is my savior" in terms of protons, electrons, neurons, electrical impulses, and chemical reactions."

You put your left foot in, you take your left out, you put your left foot in, and you shake it all about. You do the hokey-pokey and you turn yourself around-THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!" I can't explain which neurons were activated when I sang this song, but it must be a metaphor for something, so it will become my new religion.

Emily,

:-) That's the point. That's, pretty much, all brain does as explained by the neuroscience. If you think that the brain does anything more than that, you need to prove it - that's how I understand Tracie's comment.

Did you watch too much Busey lately? :-)

AG, Earlier in the thread you said, "Much work needs to be done to explain what this idea of Jesus means and how it affects my brain to change my behavior, etc."

The same concepts that "affect your brain to change your behavior" can come from someplace other than Jesus. Lots of similar ideas have caused people to behave in a certain way-they look at their life and see what they want and they adjust their behavior accordingly. This is a type of evolution, in my opinion. It doesn't take much work to explain it-if someone was selfish, they see that it caused others harm. They feel bad for hurting their loved ones, and they act differently. Whether this was inspired by Buddha or Voltaire or Jesus isn't really the point-it is really not about that-it IS a manifestation of one's OWN MIND and one's own desire to change something.

As far as saying my hokey pokey song is "pretty much" all "brain does" as explained by "the neuroscience", that makes no sense. Have you read about neuroscience? Brain activity generated by one's own thoughts is a lot more provable than Jesus on an MRI.

As for Busey, I haven't seen him since an old movie called, "Hider in the House."

Re: "Brain activity generated by one's own thoughts is a lot more provable than Jesus on an MRI. "

I'm a bit confused here. Are thoughts generated by brain activity or brain activity generated by thoughts? I guess, the answer is "thoughts ARE brain activity".

Re: "The same concepts that "affect your brain to change your behavior" can come from someplace other than Jesus."

I see confusion about what "Jesus" means. To me, "Jesus" is an idea. If I say that my certain behavior is caused by "Jesus", I mean, "idea of Jesus". You have to take my word for it. I cannot prove that an idea exists in my head except by expressing this idea. If somebody wants to explain my behavior using MRI, that's fine. That way one can also find out which areas in my brain are responsible for the idea of Jesus. But that does not change anything. To me, that would be just another way to say that "my behavior is caused by the idea of Jesus".

The words you quote, by the way, seem to be Chuck's.

AG said, "20,000 people gathering in a church on a weekend should be a detectable event. What brings them together every week?I understand that they arrive in cars and walk in on their legs driven by chemical reactions in their muscles. That answer I know and it does not seem to make sense."

I'm sure many more people than that go to the circus every year. It's probably why P. T. Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute." Attracting a mob doesn't mean a thing concerning the "truth" of any issue.

AG said, "What I mean to say is that humans use metaphors as shortcuts to describe complex concepts and processes. These concepts do not always have equivalents in material world."

Well, when they only have equivalents in the spiritual world you need to prove that there is one. We all know what a analogy is and why it's used and we also know when something is a crock of shit. Constructing a metaphor for something does not prove that the something ever existed.

It is a well known fact that when scientific knowledge surpassed what was written in the bible the theologians started claiming it was all symbolic and not to be taken literally, and yet, they insist that all of the biblical contradictory, ambiguous gobbledegook is the blueprint for being saved. Good Luck

Linda said: " Well, when they only have equivalents in the spiritual world you need to prove that there is one."

So what do "love", "freedom", "suffering", etc. symbolize in material world? If I'm not mistaken, atheists say that abstract concepts represent something in material world like number 2 can be demonstrated by a pair of eyes. What physical thing can you show to explain suffering?

I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I'm saying that God to me is one of those concepts which cannot be shown or kept in a pocket. Much of science is also symbolic, with nothing to show in real world.

I'm not trying to convert you or prove that God exists in any way. I'm just saying that most of what people say and do is symbolic and has no meaning. Claiming that science is, somehow, more meaningful than religion, is making the same mistake as claiming the opposite.

AG said, "So what do "love", "freedom", "suffering", etc. symbolize in material world?"

Words can symbolize all kinds of things, including things that are total fiction - made-up. Words are not evidence of anything. Words describe things we can't see like gravity, which is a force, but like anything that exists there's always a way to prove it is there. That's not the same thing as a word for something that someone claims exists without any evidence of any kind - it's just a word without much meaning until something is proven. There is a word for things that someone sees that nobody else sees - it's called hallucinations.

AG said, "If I'm not mistaken, atheists say that abstract concepts represent something in material world like number 2 can be demonstrated by a pair of eyes. What physical thing can you show to explain suffering?"

You're still confusing the word science or scientists with atheists, nevertheless, an example of abstract thinking would be to use mathematics to create a model of something or calculate something. Abstract thinking can be used to create a model of something that could logically, conceivably or possibly happen in the future in order to find a solution to a problem. It's not the same thing as deciding something exists without any evidence and then relying upon it to tell you what to do.

AG said, "I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I'm saying that God to me is one of those concepts which cannot be shown or kept in a pocket. Much of science is also symbolic, with nothing to show in real world."

Are you sure that Creationists and anti-environmentalists are using the same methods as scientists and that the scientists don't have any more to show in the real world? Did you know that the theory of evolution is what all biological science and medicine is based on, and do you know that's something to show in the real world?

AG said, "I'm not trying to convert you or prove that God exists in any way. I'm just saying that most of what people say and do is symbolic and has no meaning.

No, it's what most of the people you know say and do- and that has no real meaning.

AG said, "Claiming that science is, somehow, more meaningful than religion, is making the same mistake as claiming the opposite."

Yes well, that's what I would expect from someone who apparently doesn't know "what brain do."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. A scientific theory has to have a firm (or defensible) basis. A theory is a scientifically acceptable principle that explains a large body of facts, and is supported by a preponderance of evidence (a large body of evidence) There is no scientific theory that starts out with a theory first and then they go looking for the evidence. Science does not work that way, you can't have a theory before you have the evidence, the evidence leads one to the theory. The scientific method advocates disbelief in claims that are made without evidence. A hypothesis has to be submitted for peer review before it becomes a theory. That means you let all of the scientists in that field try to disprove the theory. The objective is accepting only theories that add actual knowledge to the scientific process and keeping bias out of the process. Scientists do not present hypotheses without proof and rigorous testing - while religion doesn't and never has required any of that.

Carl Sagan (the scientist) said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that wasn't because science doesn't require evidence.

Every religion is believed on faith alone, that's fideism the Latin word for faith is fides and that means "faith-ism", which is the idea that faith is superior to reason. Religion is based on the appeal to ignorance - like "you can't prove it's not true so it must be". Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage" is an example of that kind of statement about an invisible dragon in his garage that cannot be detected by any known method.

It was science that did away with many erroneous long held religious claims and many of the leading scientists have been involved in the effort to keep religious philosophies out of the science classroom. These scientists have pointed out the incompatibility between religion and science. This conflict dates very far back into ancient history, but I'll just give for example the conflict with Copernicus who's sun-centered theory became known as the heliocentric system (from the Greek word helios) which means "sun." Copernicus knew his discovery contradicted what Christianity taught so he did not publish his discovery until shortly before his death in 1543.

There have been scientists throughout history who have not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues and they have all paid a price. Some were tortured and murdered - and so much for - " does religion cause harm?"

Linda,

Lots of interesting information, as usual. But you did not answer my question. What can be shown in physical world to demonstrate suffering or happiness? Are these concepts "real"? Or do they exist in our brain only?

From: AG (Posted Oct 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm) "What can be shown in physical world to demonstrate suffering or happiness? Are these concepts "real"? Or do they exist in our brain only?"

Emotions are not something that are only going on in someone's head - like religious hallucinations. Neuroscience is the study of the neural mechanisms of the brain, which includes the study of emotions. When someone is suffering there are actual physical changes in the body and the same thing happens when they are happy. Emotions are detected (instantiated) in the brain, which is something we know through the neuroscience study of emotion. Cognition cannot be understood outside of emotion. Cognitive neuroscience can explain emotions that are complex and multifaceted from many perspectives. Research of emotion through cognitive neuroscience has shown that parts of the limbic system are involved in happiness or laughter. The limbic system is a primitive part of the brain that is involved in emotions and helps us with basic functions necessary for survival. Amygdala and the hippocampus are the two structures in the limbic system that are involved in producing happiness or laughter.

Emotions produce easily measurable physiological responses across animal species such as changes in heart rate, behavioral changes, sweat response, and activation of the amygdala (a well studied brain region) and is widely studied as a model for emotional processing. We are our nervous system. All of our thoughts, perceptions and moods comes from this network of cells. Neuroscience can chart the workings of the brain and the rest of the nervous system in remarkable detail to explain how neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, and other biological processes work.

An apparent violation of the so-called sense of free will are studies of decision making at the level of neurons that show that our brain has often committed to a course of action before we are aware of having made a decision.

Emotions are about something and are built by determining the significance of that something, a process known as appraisal. Emotional appraisal based on categorization governed by reasoning serve behavioral functions (preparedness) that enhance the probability of survival. The general consensus of scientists is that emotion is an adaptive survival tool. Emotions evolved from simple reflexive actions. The most primitive and general of these responses are movements towards positive and away from negative things.

Technology can detect the living brain at work, and the physiological effects of emotional states, feelings or emotions do manifest themselves in physical ways. We can monitor the brain activity.

We can demonstrate what is "real in the physical world" with technology and we do know what is, and is not, an optical illusion through science and technology. That includes the double slit experiment. "Disentangling the wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment." This experiment shows that you can observe particle and wave-like behavior at the same time by entangling photons to determine which path they take.

Re: "An apparent violation of the so-called sense of free will are studies of decision making at the level of neurons that show that our brain has often committed to a course of action before we are aware of having made a decision." (forgive me not pasting your whole post. They tend to be huge, besides, your original post appears right above this snippet if anyone wants to compare it to original).

"Sense of free will"... You said it right - "sense". There seems to be no free will as such. Jacque Fresco explains it well: http://youtu.be/Jjy-FU6tqPI

Free will seems to be a "sense" or a "feeling" that we get from acting based on our preexisting memories and experiences. None of our choices are really "free". They are based on something that already exists in our brain. And you are correct, there are neurological studies showing that we make decisions 0.2 seconds before we are aware of it. This means that decisions are made subconsciously. This also means that accepting a belief is a subconscious process. This also seems to mean that we "believe" first (or accept an idea as true) and only then confirm our idea with reasoning. This seems to be in accord with Julian Jaynes. This also seems to be in accord with Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

So, how are we supposed to make "reasonable choices"?

I think, the focus should be on training our emotional responses - controlling our anger, fear, anxiety, worries. This cannot be done by reason - perhaps, by meditation, breathing exercises, mantras, self-hypnosis, or what they call "prayer". Most of these things are a part of religious practices. And, yes, these things are dangerous. They can lead to all kinds of weird stuff.

We make decisions or solve problems before we are consciously aware of the solution. Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices. We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used. Modern man makes more decisions every day than the primitive man made throughout their whole life.

According to scientists doing cognitive and brain studies our decisions are made 7 seconds before we know it. This means that decisions are made subconsciously. This does not mean that modern man will always act on the first decision. We avoid things that cause fear, we do not avoid what make us feel safe, we eat things that we like, and we don't eat things we don't like. Our choices are controlled by our feelings or emotions. Even when we do things that are altruistic; it's because it makes us feel better to be altruistic than to be selfish, and it's also an evolutionary strategy to survive. These feelings/emotions that we consciously experience are created by a part of our brain over which we have no conscious control.

This is the mechanism by which evolution controls our conscious decisions. Our conscious minds are programmed to look for what is the most advantageous for our survival. Our conscious choices are controlled by our survival instincts. Our decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity, but by the time we are aware or conscious of the decision, most of the work has already been done. As brains evolved, new features were added to consciousness.

The "fight or flight" response is our body's primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight" or "flee" from threats to our survival. This response represents a genetic trait designed to protect us from harm. Elements of the modern nervous system of vertebrates can be traced back to some of the most primitive animals, such as sea sponges. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus that if it is stimulated it initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting. The fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind. We are integrating our intuitive and rational functions.

Emotions evolved to help the species survive. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, which by the way is one of the explanations or answers to the paradox - if there is a God why would He allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't He make everyone good?

AG said, "This also means that accepting a belief is a subconscious process. This also seems to mean that we "believe" first (or accept an idea as true) and only then confirm our idea with reasoning. This seems to be in accord with Julian Jaynes."

Most "beliefs", especially religious beliefs, are forced on people from birth. Some of us escape the coercion but not many. It is a process that has nothing to do with making subconscious decisions or any decisions, because being brainwashed from birth by family and a society that puts taboos on those who don't believe is not decision making. Intuitive decision making is not arbitrary or irrational, because it is based on years of practice.

AG said, "This also seems to be in accord with Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

AG said on Atheist Community of Austin (topic) New Atheism and its Gift - AG said, "Science is good at explaining how one particular state of matter came to be from some previous state. It also can tell us how to change the present state of matter to get to some other "desired" state. But it tells NOTHING on what that "desired" state of matter should be. It does not even tell us why we should engage in scientific research. We come up with our own reasons which have no factual basis other than our desires and passions. As Hume famously put it, we cannot derive "ought" from "is"."

That is just one example of AG promoting foo foo over real science. Scientific research has found cures for an untold number of fatal diseases that killed millions of people. What has superstition ever done for the human race?

The idea was that "ought" is based completely on beliefs made up for individuals at a particular time and place that has nothing to do with our modern selves. People can make up a deity that never existed along with it's rules. It's not science! Nobody can make up a disease that doesn't really exist. Under a microscope, scientists can identify different species of bacteria by their shape. They don't just make them up.

Adopting those beliefs without evidence is a philosophy "ought" without the "is" facts.

"Hume offered compelling criticisms of standard theistic proofs. He also advanced theories on the origin of popular religious beliefs, grounding such notions in human psychology rather than in rational argument or divine revelation."

Julian Jaynes poses the theory that until 3000 years ago societies were not conscious, before that time people functioned more like automatons with hallucinations that eventually they identified as Gods. They basically followed what they believed they were being told to do by the voices of the gods. Jaynes believed that was because there was more separation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and that caused hallucinations and the voices they heard. The people who built the pyramids were being pushed around by these hallucinations. Jaynes called this the bicameral mind which started to rapidly change at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE because of sudden changes in the environment of the Mediterranean. Jaynes theorized that schizophrenia is a throwback to the same bicameral defect. Jaynes was describing a society that wasn't conscious of the fact that the decisions they made came from self because they were not self aware. That condition was a bicameral brain, and the belief that gods were telling them what to do was a method of social control, and that was no longer needed as man evolved self-awareness or consciousness.

The fact that we make decisions subconsciously really proves that we evolved, our brain evolved and so did our emotions in order for the species to survive.

People are predisposed to develop certain beliefs due to genes, environment, and culture. The egotistical religious leader's ranting and raving is pointless since it doesn't change what anyone will do and they don't actually improve the lives of their followers.

If there is an all-powerful, all-present and all-good invisible sky fairy why does it let all kinds of horrible things happen to it's (children) or creation? And why should anyone worship it etc. etc? Most of us have an innate moral sense which is genetically coded into us as a direct result of over one hundred thousand years of physical and social evolution. With the exception of some mutant psychopaths who run a muck killing. And religion does nothing for them or the insane.

The bible babble nor any other holy writ is of any consequence to modern society. These things were made up to explain the world to illiterate primitive man before they had any scientific knowledge. Certain individuals who wanted to become important became "spiritual" leaders and they answered all the questions with superstitious religious beliefs. But really religion is about questions that can never be answered and answer that can never be questioned.

Hi, Linda.

Your posts are actually quite educational and intersting to read as long as you do not resort to bashing religion. Forgive me again for not posting your quotes completely. It is not my intention to distort the meaning. The original is right above if anyone is interested.

I understand what you mean, but listen to yourself: "Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices."

You speak of evolution as of conscious being. Evolution cannot "control" anything. Evolution is simply an explanation of how complex organic matter capable of reproduction develops from more simple forms of matter.

Re: "We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used."

What you say here sounds like living organisms make decisions to survive. If I understand it right, it's not how evolution works. Living organisms don't make decisions to survive. They simply multiply by millions and billions and then those whose behavior does not lead to survival die. Isn't that right? We are not really "choosing" or "deciding" anything, do we? If you say we are, you seem to be promoting the idea of "free will" and the ability to choose between good and evil.

Re: "According to scientists doing cognitive and brain studies our decisions are made 7 seconds before we know it. This means that decisions are made subconsciously." [AG: yes, from materialistic point of view, there is no free will] "This does not mean that modern man will always act on the first decision." [AG: "decision" - what is it?] "We avoid things that cause fear, we do not avoid what make us feel safe, we eat things that we like, and we don't eat things we don't like." [AG: Yes. No reason is involved.] "Our choices are controlled by our feelings or emotions." [AG: Yes. By random stuff. In other words, not controlled at all.] "Even when we do things that are altruistic; it's because it makes us feel better to be altruistic than to be selfish, and it's also an evolutionary strategy to survive. These feelings/emotions that we consciously experience are created by a part of our brain over which we have no conscious control." [AG: standing ovation. The myth of "control", "free will", ability to choose and decide debunked and shattered.]

Re: "This is the mechanism by which evolution controls our conscious decisions." [AG: Controls again... what's going on here?] "Our conscious minds are programmed [AG: by whom?] to look for what is the most advantageous for our survival. [AG: this seem to contradict the previous paragraph] "Our conscious choices [AG: "choices" again] are controlled [AG: "controlled" again... "Choices are controlled..." And you complain about paradoxes in religion?] by our survival instincts. Our decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity, but by the time we are aware or conscious of the decision, most of the work has already been done. As brains evolved, new features were added to consciousness." [AG: sorry, Linda. I'm lost again... We're back to control and consciousness.]

Linda, I hope you get the humor. I don't intend to mock you. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to consciousness, decision making, free will, etc., it's, perhaps, impossible to say anyting without contradiction. No matter how scientific we try to be, we slip into phrases like "evolution controls our choices" or "we are programmed". We keep thinking of ourselves as conscious beings making choices, etc. and, while doing so, we also project this conscious "self" on things around us - even on stuff like "evolution". This seems to be the same thing religion is doing, isn't it?

Re: "Emotions evolved to help the species survive."

AG: This, again, implies purpose. Perhaps, it's better to say "emotions evolved because they help species survive." where "because" is not to be construed to mean reason or purpose. Simply, if they hadn't evolved, *some* species wouldn't have survived. This does not mean that emotions are necessary for survival - just that we happen to have them.

Re: "The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will [AG: exactly. If I put on a materialistic hat, free will does not make sense. But it is hard to put on that hat, isn't it? Our language simply does not let us to do that.] , which by the way is one of the explanations or answers to the paradox - if there is a God why would He allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't He make everyone good?"

AG: I think you just resolved the Epicurean paradox. Assuming God created us, he did not order us "be good". The first thing he commanded was "be fruitful and multiply". And that's what living creatures do best. Then, whoever is "good" - lives, whoever is "bad" - dies. Natural selection. "The wages of sin is death." What seems to be inconsistent? The word "God"? OK. Throw it out and enjoy the evolution theory. Indulge yourself in an illusion of being rational and making reasonable choices based on evidence. What seems to be the problem? :-)

Rants against religion omitted...

AG SAID, "Hi, Linda. Your posts are actually quite educational and intersting to read as long as you do not resort to bashing religion." LINDA ASKED: Did you mean interesting? Too bad yours are so dull and unintelligent, typical of religious fanatics that have no interest in knowledge based information, which disputes what they already believe. AG SAID, "Forgive me again for not posting your quotes completely. It is not my intention to distort the meaning. The original is right above if anyone is interested." LINDA'S REPLY: Your distorted renditions are because you flat don't understand and can't dispute real science, your rebuttal is about a few words (taken out of context) from an entire sentence or paragraph in order to cover up the fact that there is no actual rebuttal. Your arguments are matters that have no bearing on the actual topic. AG SAID, "I understand what you mean, but listen to yourself: "Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices." IS THAT ALL LINDA SAID? AG, "You speak of evolution as of conscious being? LINDA'S REPLY: No everyone but you understands that we are speaking of how our brain evolved and works, but I'm sure not trying to call everything that I don't comprehend a spirit!

AG SAID, "Evolution cannot "control" anything. Evolution is simply an explanation of how complex organic matter capable of reproduction develops from more simple forms of matter." LINDA'S REPLY: The subject of evolution is far more complex than what you have written, LINDA SAID: Is that an incoherent so-called rebuttal? Here is the actual issue in full that demonstrates emotions and survival are involved in decisions making, which was confirmed by the excerpt from the scientific article I posted, and everyone would stand up and cheer if you could grasp any of it. This appears to be an attempt to misrepresent the topic and what was discussed concerning how we make decisions and how emotions evolved. Evolution is why emotions and decision making evolved the way it did in humans. Emotions evolved to help with decisions that assured our survival and does CONTROL the way we make decisions and I have already written reams about that. AG WHO SAID THIS? (LINDA SAID:) "Re: "We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used. LINDA SAID, Evolution does explain the amount of brain devoted to a particular task. Some animals have huge olfactory bulbs, the area of the brain that deals with smell, but humans have vast areas of the brain devoted to vision. The human (highly evolved brain) is a survival advantage. The brain is a survival organ. DID LINDA SAY THIS? "Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices. We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used." Yes she did.

LINDA SAID: This is very repetitious, but that's right every living thing on this earth (plants and animals) have evolved to retain traits that will assure it's survival. To behave functionally according to evolutionary standards, the mind's many subprograms need to be orchestrated so that their joint product at any given time is functionally coordinated, rather than cacophonous and self-defeating. The fact is AG doesn't grasp this relatively simple explanation of a very complex subject.

AG SAID, "What you say here sounds like living organisms make decisions to survive. If I understand it right, it's not how evolution works. Living organisms don't make decisions to survive. They simply multiply by millions and billions and then those whose behavior does not lead to survival die." "Isn't that right? We are not really "choosing" or "deciding" anything, do we? If you say we are, you seem to be promoting the idea of "free will" and the ability to choose between good and evil."

LINDA'S REPLY: Another feeble attempt at distortion! You can rest assured you don't understand evolution or any other scientific theory like the "Big Bang". Organisms evolve. Natural selection is how the genes to survive are passed on and which genes are not. Over time these adaptive genes will build up and make a change in these organisms. LINDA SAID: "Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices, and we make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used. Our brain has evolved to do that in order for us to have a better survival rate" That was in response to two issues - 1. that we make decisions before we are aware of it - 2. we make those decisions on past experiences and we make decisions to improve our survival chances. That is exactly how emotions evolved - things like fear helped us survive. The stupid distorted remarks are all yours. You can't grasp the information so stop trying to be a teacher because you're not one. Defective species will die, but that is only a very small part of evolution, we are talking about developing survival traits and passing on those traits to insure the survival of a species - that's why they can multiply. "AG (LINDA SAID: ) "Re: "According to scientists doing cognitive and brain studies our decisions are made 7 seconds before we know it. This means that decisions are made subconsciously." AG put that in the middle of a statement to further confuse the issue. AG said, "[AG: yes, from materialistic point of view, there is no free will]" LINDA SAID: "No from the scientific point of view - not the religious fanatic view - which is not science. LINDA SAID: "This does not mean that modern man will always act on the first decision." AG SAID, "[AG: "decision" - what is it?]" LINDA SAID: I'm sure you don't know??? A decision to act because of a threat to our safety is antithetical to a decision about what movie to watch. Decisions about our survival are made without being aware of the method of selecting we've made - instinctively, and that's not surprising since emotions started as instincts. We can read a review of the movie before we decide to watch it etc. but even that kind of decision making has something to do with our emotions that evolved to help us survive. "AG COPIED LINDA'S REPLY, "We avoid things that cause fear, we do not avoid what make us feel safe, we eat things that we like, and we don't eat things we don't like." AG SAID, "[AG: Yes. No reason is involved.] LINDA SAID, "Our choices are controlled by our feelings or emotions." AG SAID, "[AG: Yes. By random stuff. In other words, not controlled at all.] LINDA SAID: Emotions rule the brain's decisions By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY "The evidence has been piling up throughout history, and now neuroscientists have proved it's true: The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making." LINDA SAID: Just pick the simplest answer since that's what religion does, right, reality is much too complex. " AG, (LINDA SAID), "Even when we do things that are altruistic; it's because it makes us feel better to be altruistic than to be selfish, and it's also an evolutionary strategy to survive. These feelings/emotions that we consciously experience are created by a part of our brain over which we have no conscious control." AG SAID, "[AG: standing ovation. The myth of "control", "free will", ability to choose and decide debunked and shattered.]" LINDA SAID: I'm sure it was little comfort to fanatical boobs who claim that god gave them and the devil "freewill"! It's the dim-wits excuse for god allowing evil.

AG (LINDA SAID) "This is the mechanism by which evolution controls our conscious decisions." LINDA SAID: That's not a rebuttal. Here is the actual issue in full that demonstrates emotions are involved in decisions making, which was confirmed by the excerpt from the scientific article I posted, and everyone would stand up and cheer if you could grasp any of it. LINDA SAID: I doubt there is anyone dumb enough to think someone's going to answer what he posted. It's not a full statement. You Dig! AG said, "[AG: Controls again... what's going on here?] "Our conscious minds are programmed" LINDA SAID: You're desperate! Here is the entire remark that he can't answer. LINDA'S REPLY: this is the mechanism by which evolution controls our conscious decisions. Our conscious minds are programmed to look for what is the most advantageous for our survival. Our conscious choices are controlled by our survival instincts. Our decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity, but by the time we are aware or conscious of the decision, most of the work has already been done. As brains evolved, new features were added to consciousness. LINDA SAID: The brain is a survival organ. It is designed to solve problems related to surviving. The structural and functional capabilities of the human brain were selected to promote survival.

AG SAID, "[AG: by whom?] to look for what is the most advantageous for our survival." LINDA SAID: I'm more than sure you don't understand evolution well enough to figure out that there is no sky fairy programmer. Evolutionary biology: Eric R. Piank Natural selection is the only directed evolutionary mechanism resulting in conformity between an organism and its environment. This is how adaptations arise and are maintained. Natural selection is truly the fundamental unifying theory for all life. A thorough comprehension of natural selection opens a window of lucidity enabling an understanding of virtually any phenomenon in the living world. LINDA SAID: Natural selection has evolved human intelligence enough to become aware of the force (natural selection) driving all living systems. AG SAID, "[AG: this seem to contradict the previous paragraph] "Our conscious choices [AG: "choices" again] are controlled" LINDA SAID: You wish! No, that doesn't contradict anything I've said, but you're desperately trying to find an argument and failing miserably. I posted what AG thinks of science and he thinks evolution was described in the bible. Not that you're capable of understanding this but, every living thing on this earth (plants and animals) have evolved to retain traits that will assure it's survival." To behave functionally according to evolutionary standards, the mind's many subprograms need to be orchestrated so that their joint product at any given time is functionally coordinated, rather than cacophonous and self-defeating. The "fight or flight" response is our body's primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight" or "flee" from threats to our survival. This response represents a genetic trait designed to protect us from harm. Elements of the modern nervous system of vertebrates can be traced back to some of the most primitive animals, such as sea sponges. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus that if it is stimulated it initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting. The fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind. We are integrating our intuitive and rational functions. Emotions evolved to help the species survive. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, which by the way is one of the explanations or answers to the paradox - if there is a God why would He allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't He make everyone good? LINDA SAID: You don't understand how evolution works. Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices. We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used.

AG SAID, "[AG: "controlled" again... "Choices are controlled..." And you complain about paradoxes in religion?] by our survival instincts."LINDA'S REPLY: There are no paradoxes or conflicting statements everything leads to the very same conclusion - evolution is why we are here and it is why we have emotions and it has shaped the way we make decisions. Now how about that bible babble. Genesis 1:27 states that God created man in his image. Does that statement in the Bible mean that God has a physical body because man does? Is God mortal? If not why does anyone believe Genesis 1:27, and if it is true then God is a mortal man not a God. How's that for contradiction AG?? LINDA SAID: You left out "evolution" in every one of those fake renditions about "mechanisms" "programmed" and "control" since that's what the argument was really about and you haven't got a clue. Evolution is why we exist; it's why everything exists, it's why the Universe exists. LINDA SAID: "Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices. Not God! We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used."

SOMETHING LINDA SAID? "Our decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity, but by the time we are aware or conscious of the decision, most of the work has already been done." As brains evolved, new features were added to consciousness." AG SAID, "[AG: sorry, Linda. I'm lost again... We're back to control and consciousness.]

LINDA'S REPLY: You were born lost! He's going in circles repeating the same things over and over. Face the fact you don't understand evolution are anything scientific. We avoid things that cause fear, we do not avoid what make us feel safe, we eat things that we like, and we don't eat things we don't like. Our choices are controlled by our feelings or emotions. Even when we do things that are altruistic; it's because it makes us feel better to be altruistic than to be selfish, and it's also an evolutionary strategy to survive. (See that's the role evolution plays in things) These feelings/emotions that we consciously experience are created by a part of our brain over which we have no conscious control. And it has evolved to react the way it does for our survival. Somebody draw a picture.

AG SAID, "Linda, I hope you get the humor. I don't intend to mock you. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to consciousness, decision making, free will, etc., it's, perhaps, impossible to say anyting without contradiction."

LINDA'S REPLY: Can a blithering idiot mock anyone? I suggest that you try to pawn the pseudoscience off on a Christian site where they will love your ignorance. LINDA SAID: Atheist Community of Austin (topic) New Atheism and its Gift - AG SAID, "Science is good at explaining how one particular state of matter came to be from some previous state. It also can tell us how to change the present state of matter to get to some other "desired" state. But it tells NOTHING on what that "desired" state of matter should be. It does not even tell us why we should engage in scientific research. We come up with our own reasons which have no factual basis other than our desires and passions. As Hume famously put it, we cannot derive "ought" from "is"."

LINDA SAID: spoken like any anti-science apologist. LINDA SAID: That is just one example of AG promoting foo foo over real science. Scientific research has found cures for an untold number of fatal diseases that killed millions of people. What has superstition ever done for the human race? LINDA SAID: The idea was that "ought" is based completely on beliefs made up for individuals at a particular time and place that has nothing to do with our modern selves. Adopting those beliefs without evidence is a philosophy "ought" without the "is" facts. People can make up a deity that never existed along with it's rules. It's not science! Nobody can make up a disease that doesn't really exist. Under a microscope, scientists can identify different species of bacteria by their shape. They don't just make them up.

AG SAID, "no matter how scientific we try to be, we slip into phrases like "evolution controls our choices" or "we are programmed" LINDA SAID: Maybe you should go back and read the scientific proof of that until it sinks in! AG SAID, "We keep thinking of ourselves as conscious beings making choices, etc. and, while doing so, we also project this conscious "self" on things around us - even on stuff like "evolution". This seems to be the same thing religion is doing, isn't it?" LINDA'S REPLY: I don't think so! Nobody is confused about what I actually said in full, it can be found in any science book. You want science to be as dumb as what you believe, it's not. You have compared a lot of things a spirit right on this topic that has been proven to be very different and explainable, that's what's wrong. LINDA SAID: 'Free will is an illusion.' "Our amazingly, wonderfully complex brains is comprised of various cognitive systems cycling amongst themselves and generating our thoughts, consciousness, choices and behavior. These systems and their effects all result from the mechanical, inorganic laws of physics, over which we have no control." 'The Illusion of Choice-Free Will and Determinism' "Bertrand Russell wrote that "the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy" in his "History of Western Philosophy". Our circumstances, in line with the strict determinism of physics and biochemistry, predetermine all our choices and therefore, free will is an illusion.

LINDA: From 'The Illusion of Choice-Free Will and Determinism' Consciousness is presented to us as a result of our neurones, our brains, our senses. When we lose these, we lose consciousness. These systems are governed and controlled by neurochemicals, hormones, ionisation, impulses: in short, by biochemistry. Biochemistry is in turn merely a type of chemistry, and when we look at the molecules and atoms that make up our chemistry, they obey the laws of physics." AG (LINDA SAID: ) Re: "Emotions evolved to help the species survive." AG SAID: This, again, implies purpose. Perhaps, it's better to say "emotions evolved because they help species survive. where "because" is not to be construed to mean reason or purpose. "

(LINDA SAID) Re: "Emotions evolved to help the species survive."AG SAID : Perhaps, it's better to say "emotions evolved because they help species survive. LINDA SAID: He thinks he changed something? How does he get down the road? The brain, and all of it's mechanisms evolved and operate in a certain way in order to insure our survival.

AG SAID, "Simply, if they hadn't evolved, *some* species wouldn't have survived. This does not mean that emotions are necessary for survival - just that we happen to have them." LINDA SAID: This is an attempt to mix what I said: "why were species created that were too defective to survive by an Almighty God?" With why we have evolved emotions. Natural selection, which operates by differential reproductive success of individuals. Natural selection is the only directed evolutionary mechanism resulting in conformity between an organism and its environment. This is how adaptations arise and are maintained. Natural selection is truly the fundamental unifying theory for all life.

AG SAID: (LINDA SAID), "re: "the positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will (THIS IS WHERE AG STOPPED)

Here is the statement in Full: LINDA SAID: The "fight or flight" response is our body's primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight" or "flee" from threats to our survival. This response represents a genetic trait designed to protect us from harm. Elements of the modern nervous system of vertebrates can be traced back to some of the most primitive animals, such as sea sponges. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus that if it is stimulated it initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting. The fight or flight system bypasses our rational mind. We are integrating our intuitive and rational functions. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, (leaving off) which by the way is one of the explanations or answers to the paradox - if there is a god why would he allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't he make everyone good?

AG SAID, "[AG: exactly. If I put on a materialistic hat, free will does not make sense. But it is hard to put on that hat, isn't it? Our language simply does not let us to do that, which by the way is one of the explanations or answers to the paradox - if there is a God why would He allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't He make everyone good?"

LINDA SAID: "If there is a god why would he allow evil or the devil to exist, and why didn't He make everyone good?" Evolution is science "freewill" is an excuse for an all powerful God that never does anything, the two things are not related in any conceivable way. This is absolute proof that you are far too thick to grasp any scientific theory so why don't you use your special little talents on a Christian message board where evil-ution is held in disdain.

AG SAID: "I think you just resolved the Epicurean paradox." LINDA'S REPLY: Only if you don't have much to think with! I am clearly saying evolution controls our choices, and everything evolved through natural processes. There is no God - that's the answer. AG SAID: "Assuming God created us, he did not order us "be good"." LINDA SAID: The Bible says we were created in His image - isn't He all- good? AG SAID: "The first thing he commanded was "be fruitful and multiply". And that's what living creatures do best." LINDA'S REPLY: Especially those dinosaurs that went extinct that God forgot to mention as part of Creation. AG SAID: "Then, whoever is "good" - lives, whoever is "bad" - dies. Natural selection. "The wages of sin is death." LINDA'S REPLY: If only good people live I can name some people that must be dead that we all think are alive! A species might survive a pandemic because they have a mutated gene that makes them immune to the disease that they will pass on. That has nothing to do with being good. I'm sure we all know ignorant rotten trash that's as healthy as a horse.

AG SAID: "What seems to be inconsistent? The word "God"? OK. Throw it out and enjoy the evolution theory. Indulge yourself in an illusion of being rational and making reasonable choices based on evidence. What seems to be the problem? :-) Rants against religion omitted..."

LINDA'S REPLY: Evolution is happening and evolution will continue to happen! We have studied evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory, we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment, and in some cases biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. That's why evolution is a fact. There is an abundance of evidence besides a very good fossil record. From the march 2009 issue Of Discover Magazine - DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right - Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time - By observing how the genes changed during the course of embryonic development, scientists could track the emergence of a novel physical trait, the first step toward the creation of a new species. For the first time, researchers had direct access to the machinery of evolution and could actually watch it in the act. A new science, known as evolutionary developmental biology, or evo devo, was born.

LINDA: You need to converse with anti-science fanatics who believe evolution is wrong, because what you want to make work on this message board won't fly, or you can post some phony atheist arguments and argue with yourself, it's a lot easier. But your best bet is to take a hike!

Re: "Words describe things we can't see like gravity, which is a force, but like anything that exists there's always a way to prove it is there. That's not the same thing as a word for something that someone claims exists without any evidence of any kind - it's just a word without much meaning until something is proven."

Hmm... General relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as space curvature. So, what is it? Force or space curvature seem to be two ways to describe the same natural phenomenon. Just like waves or particles are two ways to explain the same phenomenon of light. Those are concepts or symbols which our mind maps to things that we perceive.

Our emotions are only perceived internally. Externally, we can only perceive "brain activity" or electrical impulses. When someone claims he is happy or sad, what evidence does he need to produce to prove these statements? It seems to me, people use what they call "spirits" to explain their emotional states or internal motivations. Why doing so is "irrational" or bad in any way?

I understand, religion has caused all kinds of delusions and atrocities in the past, but I don't think religion alone is responsible for these atrocities. People seem to use religion to justify their passions which they get otherwise. Just my opinion. I know, you disagree.

It's rumored that Einstein got his idea or understanding of gravity by visualizing someone falling off a building. The falling person would not experience any force while falling until they hit the ground and suffer the severe forces. It's not the fall that kills you; it's the force of hitting the ground.

Albert Einstein unified his own Special relativity, Newton's law of universal gravitation, and the crucial insight that the effects of gravity can be described by the curvature of space and time, usually just called 'space-time' curvature. The General Theory of Relativity.

Einstein's theory of gravity as the warping of space-time works for very large distances, but not very small distances.

String theory a theory of quantum gravity. objects within the theory that match the properties of the graviton. These objects are a specific type of closed strings that are also mass-less particles that have spin of 2, exactly like gravitons. Gravitons are a spin-2 mass-less particle that, under string theory, can be formed by a certain type of vibrating closed string. String theory wasn't created to have gravitons they're a natural and required consequence of the theory.

In the Standard Model of particle physic gravity is incompatible with all the other forces of physics. String theory solves this problem because it not only includes gravity, but it makes gravity a necessary outcome of the theory. The graviton is a particle predicted by string theory. The graviton is not a particle like an electron or photon that moves on warped space-time. It is a particle of space-time itself. The movement of these particles of space-time would be the warping of space-time.

Theories of quantum gravity that include gravitons contend that the warping will turn out not to be the only explanation needed for gravity. People working on these theories hope that they will eventually be able to make predictions that differ from what General Relativity would predict, and can be tested by experiment. If these theories are successful, then the new theories would supersede classical General Relativity as the fundamental view of gravity.

General Relativity would probably continue to be used for practical calculations in areas where it already works, just like Newton's theory of gravity is still used for many practical calculations.

As noted, Quantum Mechanics and General relativity have not been reconciled with each other, and we don't have a good quantum theory of gravity.

We know according to quantum mechanics light comes in mass-less particles, called photons, which carries electromagnetic force with it. This is essential to the theory of quantum mechanics, people hypothesized the existence of a similar particle which carries the gravitational force.

This is just another case in point where you were given the information about emotions (you seem to think emotions prove something spiritual exists... I guess?) and then you are shown that it can be proven with evidence emotions evolved for survival, so you reply with something totally tangential and repetitious.

And I described the difference in Newton's and Einsteins theory of Gravity on Atheist Community of Austin (topic) Age of the Earth to ad nauseam, for all the good it did.

Yes, the theory of gravity will change as new theories are developed, but it will not change the fact that gravity exists.

AG, your comments on Atheist Community of Austin (topic) Age of the Earth are very telling as to why you think science has to be proven lacking. Just read them if you don't think so: AG, "So, what does science need to be true? Two things among others: faith to believe that there is unlimited unknown outside its realm and humility to accept its own limitations."

I guess it doesn't know anything compared to what's in the Bible.

Atheist Community of Austin (topic) Age of the Earth - From: AG - (Posted May 13, 2011 at 1:06 am)

AG said, "Bible's most valuable message is not "God created the Earth in six days". That's just the first 2 chapters. Have you read the rest? Yes, it fails to explain material world accurately. So does science in realm of the human nature. Can an elephant defeat a whale?"

I guess science obviously doesn't make sense if you don't understand it? I take it that you think scientists are dumb. Sorry I didn't answer that one before, I will now. Can an elephant swim?

From article entitled "Disentangling the wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment."

Niels Bohr proposed that the wave-particle duality eliminated the concept of a reality separate from one's observations. In his "Copenhagen interpretation" he outlines that the act of measurement affects what is observed. We would discover in time that the source of particle duality is a condition called "entanglement".

Typically, the particle nature and the wave nature have to be observed separately; if you track the particles through a single slit, the interference pattern vanishes. However, Ralf Menzel, Dirk Puhlmann, Axel Heuer, and Wolfgang P. Schleich entangled two photons and allowed one to pass through a barrier with two slits. The entanglement enabled them to determine which opening the photon went through, but a detector on the other side still picked up an interference pattern, demonstrating light's wave- and particle-like characteristics simultaneously etc...."

It was not people observing that changed the behavior it was the act of detecting which slit the electron went through that caused the behavior to change. When we know the path of the electron it acts like matter and when we do not know it acts like waves.

Experiments have been conducted to prove that the detection device itself was not breaking down the wave pattern. Look up the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" to learn more about how this was accomplished.

This experiment shows that you can observe particle and wave-like behavior at the same time by entangling photons to determine which path they take.

Emotions evolved to help the species survive. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, which by the way is one of the fruit loopy explanations for why God allows evil, let the devil exist and didn't make everyone good. That's about Holy Roller Religion.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own facts.

Re: "you seem to think emotions prove something spiritual exists... I guess?"

I think, "spirits" are ideas. Much like "memes" that Dawkins came up with. I think, "spirits exist" in the same way as "imaginary numbers exist" - in our head to describe reality. I think, "emotions prove something spiritual exists" in the same way as "electrical impedance proves imaginary numbers exist". In other words, I don't think emotions prove that spirits exist. I think, concept of spirits is used to describe emotions. You seem to read something else into my words.

Re: "AG said, "Bible's most valuable message is not "God created the Earth in six days". That's just the first 2 chapters. Have you read the rest? Yes, it fails to explain material world accurately. So does science in realm of the human nature. Can an elephant defeat a whale?" I guess science obviously doesn't make sense if you don't understand it? I take it that you think scientists are dumb. Sorry I didn't answer that one before, I will now. Can an elephant swim? "

I usually don't think of anyone as "dumb". Especially scientists. Obviously, anything we don't understand does not make sense. Science makes sense to me. Does religion make sense to you?

"Can an elephant swim"? - that was the point. Whale and elephant are two different beasts. They don't even live in the same environment. Just like religion and science. It's a silly question "What represents reality more accurately - religion, science, or art?".

Re: "...so you reply with something totally tangential and repetitious." Yes, I seem to have a splinter in my eye. Thanks for noticing :-).

AG puts "Re" instead of "Linda" "Re: "you seem to think emotions prove something spiritual exists... I guess?" AG left off what that was in response to, so here goes:

AG said, "I think, the focus should be on training our emotional responses - controlling our anger, fear, anxiety, worries. This cannot be done by reason - perhaps, by meditation, breathing exercises, mantras, self-hypnosis, or what they call "prayer"."

Linda said then, "We make decisions or solve problems before we are consciously aware of the solution." Linda said now, "But that process is based on past experiences anyway. It is not really without reason. It's not like an empty brain-pan (head) is making decisions. Evolution controls our conscious and subconscious choices. We make decisions that improve the survival chances of our genes, without being aware of the method of selecting we've used."

Then AG addressed an analogy I made using gravity (that was not wrong) and ignored the entire actual issue about emotions and all the information he was given.

Linda then, "This is just another case in point where you were given the information about emotions (you seem to think emotions prove something spiritual exists... I guess?) and then you are shown that it can be proven with evidence emotions evolved for survival, so you reply with something totally tangential and repetitious."

AG said, "I think, "spirits" are ideas. Much like "memes" that Dawkins came up with."

This is not surprising, since every time you are proven wrong you make weird random inaccurate statements that go with irrelevant issue. Memes are not ideas as such; Dawkins theory about "memes" is about the spreading of information or ideas, and there is no analogy since understanding how information spreads "memes" has nothing to do with "spirits". No matter how much you want to make what you believe the same as a real scientists' Dawkins or his scientific theory, it's not. One is an action that takes place and the other is about the existence of something supernatural. One can be proven to happen and the other can't.

AG said, "I think, "spirits exist" in the same way as "imaginary numbers exist" - in our head to describe reality."

Well, that's because you want to make an idiotic notion seem plausible. Spirits are not "memes" and they are certainly not the same as "imaginary numbers". Spirits don't explain anything that is real. Real negative number can not be obtained by squaring any real number. In mathematics imaginary numbers are not actually imaginary in the way that word is usually used. Imaginary numbers are used in some branches of mathematics (the main use for them is to make it possible to solve certain equations) the imaginary number is an actual number times the positive square root of -1. The positive square root of -1 is commonly called i. It is not a positive - negative or whole numbers or an integer. It is the answer to what number squared is -1? No accepted number can answer that question. That's why we have to use imaginary numbers to answer that question. But imaginary numbers are used to explain things that exist in the real world. We know we formulated imaginary numbers to solve certain equations and they do exist. A myth about "spirits" can't be used as an analogy for (a man made tool) imaginary numbers.

AG said, "I think, "emotions prove something spiritual exists" in the same way as "electrical impedance proves imaginary numbers exist".

Electrical impedance, or simply impedance, describes a measure of opposition to alternating current (AC). That is the measuring of something that exists. How do you measure a "spirit". Emotions evolved over millions of years "spiritual" as we understand it has nothing what-so-ever to do with evolution. Neither evolution nor mathematics are related in any way to anything "spiritual". We can study emotions that occur in the human body and we can determine how they evolved.

AG said, "In other words, I don't think emotions prove that spirits exist. I think, concept of spirits is used to describe emotions. You seem to read something else into my words."

No, AG said, "I think, "emotions prove something spiritual exists." That's what AG said, and it's very obvious, No, there is no analogy with science and spirits. AG wants to prove with little idiotic irrelevant analogies that "spirits", which is a spectral entity, does exist. That's how people like AG overlook all the evidence that there are no spirits or gods.

Yes, we all know by now who thinks he can make the bible babble into science. The spirit world originated with the Egyptians over three thousand years ago. Monotheism was created by Akhenaton IV in XIV century BC. You can try to make your belief into something it's not but it's just a cover-up. Lilith was the first wife of Adam and is referred to as "a spirit of all spirits" and "the Northerner." Either following a confrontation with Adam, or after the creation of Eve, Lilith fled the garden of Eden and refused to return. Lilith continues to roam the world as a harmful spirit, acting as a succubus who seduces mortal men and kills children. According to Jewish legend, Lilith gave birth to the Lilin, a race of evil spirits associated with witches and hags. In Kabbala or the Zohar Lilith appears as a night demon in Jewish lore and as a screech owl in Isaiah 34:14 in the King James version of the Bible. In later folklore, "Lilith" is the name for Adam's first wife. Lilith first appeared as wind and storm demons or spirits as Lilitu, in Sumer, around 4000 BC.

AG said, "I usually don't think of anyone as "dumb". Especially scientists. Obviously, anything we don't understand does not make sense. Science makes sense to me. Does religion make sense to you?"

AG, "So, what does science need to be true? Two things among others: faith to believe that there is unlimited unknown outside its realm and humility to accept its own limitations."

I could tell you are up on your science from reading Atheist Community of Austin (topic) Age of Earth

AG said, "It just occurred to me that Mark 15:1-7 is a summary of evolution theory, the origin of species, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in a nutshell:"

Linda said, "Well, you are not the first to quote biblical verses and claim it's evolution. We know that in every cell of every living creature, atoms are configured into proteins and tangled strings of DNA. We know, even, that these atoms were all synthesized from pristine hydrogen by processes deep inside stars that died before our solar system came into being. We are literally the ashes of ancient stars - the "nuclear waste" from the fuel that made them shine. We know, also, what forces acted on those stars, and act on our bodies. The forces uncovered by Faraday and Newton to the "nuclear" force that actually holds the nuclei of atoms together - and without this force there would be no carbon, no oxygen and no life. If you think that the verse you are quoting "Mark 15:1-7 is a summary of evolution theory" you don't know a damn thing about the theory. Mark 15:1-7 only describes how fruit trees are pruned if they don't bear fruit. We know that the essence of all substances - color, texture, hardness and so forth - is set by the atoms of which they are made, and by how those atoms are linked together. There is no "god of the gaps." in the theory. There is nothing in Mark 15:1-7 that indicates an understanding of the chain of events that caused atoms, stars and planets to emerge and life on this planet to evolved.

According to the "Word of God" the Bible begins by stating: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. God formed the Earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting", all at the same time. Even though, we know that there are many planets that are much older than Earth. How did it take about a million years for the universe to become cooler for the condensation of subatomic particles into hydrogen atoms (much fewer helium atoms and even fewer lithium atoms)? These hydrogen atoms continue to make up a large part of the matter in the universe. The age of the Earth is about 4 billion years and our universe is 15 billion years old.

Naturally, we can't overlook the notion that the intelligent designer or Creator is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved. The universe might not exist at all because we are being trick by an evil magician and we don't know what reality is because we are living in a delusion. But how can that be if God told us what He did and the Bible is true?

Genesis defies what we know scientifically. If God used evolution instead of supernatural instant creation why wouldn't he tell us about it? Religion is more attractive to people without any ability to understand actual science. They can understand "god did it" and that's about it.

AG said, "Can an elephant swim"? - that was the point. Whale and elephant are two different beasts. They don't even live in the same environment. Just like religion and science. It's a silly question "What represents reality more accurately - religion, science, or art?".

Oh! You were being silly! Whats new? Your right science is true and religion is bunk. Science is about things that are provable and religion is about a fantasy without any possibility of proof. However, you try to say science and bible babble are not the same on this page but on Atheist Community of Austin (topic) Age of Earth AG said, "It just occurred to me that Mark 15:1-7 is a summary of evolution theory, the origin of species, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in a nutshell:"

When you couldn't prove your bunk was science you changed what you had said on "Age of Earth" and that's obvious. Scientists don't try to prove anything about "spirits" because scientists would need some kind of actual evidence (none exists to date) that there is anything there. There's plenty of evidence that there is nothing there. Houdini exposed many spiritualists as hoax before his death and like Houdini, Harry Price and the Amazing James Randi did the same.

Re: "Emotions evolved to help the species survive. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, "

You seem to be aware of the difficulties associated with the concept of "free will". So, why do you expect people to make "reasonable choices"? Did you choose to type it or did it just "come out"?

From: AG (Posted Nov 18, 2012 at 9:14 pm)

AG answer with "Re" not Linda said, "Re: "Emotions evolved to help the species survive. The positive effects of the "fight or flight" response on decision making is why we make decisions automatically without thinking. It's a survival instinct that evolved. It brings into question weather man ever had anything that even vaguely resembled free-will, "

AG said, "You seem to be aware of the difficulties associated with the concept of "free will". So, why do you expect people to make "reasonable choices"? Did you choose to type it or did it just "come out"?"

I think most people with a lick of sense knows the difference in making a fast decision and writing about something that you have studied and figured out. They also know that decisions are made before we are aware of it but they are based on a lot of information stored in the brain.

I don't believe I was ever talking about expecting everyone to make reasonable choices. However, you don't seem to realize that it's the clergy that uses the excuse of "free will" to explain why god allows evil.

Believers like you can't admit that this belief is based on something totally false and meant to deceive; it's beyond proof? This is another really childish analogy. We know that spirits don't exist because it's been debunked many times. We can determine the difference in something man made that we use in math to calculate and a fraudulent story designed to scare idiots into dependency upon a superstitious belief.

We understand nature and natural causes but there is no proof of anything that was designed, no spirit. you would have to prove that spirits exist and nobody ever has. Nobody is trying to prove that imaginary numbers were not man made, but someone is trying to prove that something wasn't made up by man (spirits) without a shred of proof. Imaginary numbers exist and we use them all the time but "spirit" has no use and doesn't mean a anything.

AG Said: I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I'm saying that God to me is one of those concepts which cannot be shown or kept in a pocket. Much of science is also symbolic, with nothing to show in real world.

AG, Please tell me some things of science which are symbolic, with nothing to show in the real world.

Check out this video

http://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible.html

Most of science and abstract concepts just describe reality. They just represent reality in our brain. What reality is, we don't know - we are constantly learning and it keeps changing on us. As the speaker in the video says, "we can see the matter, but we cannot see, what's the matter" :-)

For example, tell me how you can demonstrate an imaginary number, e.g. sqrt(-1). Or what's a "discriminant" in real world other than a formula used to solve a quadratic equation? Or entropy?

AG Said: For example, tell me how you can demonstrate an imaginary number, e.g. sqrt(-1). Or what's a "discriminant" in real world other than a formula used to solve a quadratic equation? Or entropy?

AG, At your suggestion, I looked up "imaginary numbers". Most sources tell us that the name "imaginary" is obsolete and is not used anymore. In college, I was annoyed by the description "imaginary" because we were using j (the square root of -1) to solve impedance problems where resistors, capacitors, and inductors are connected together. When connected together, the resulting electrical network impedes the flow of electric current to a certain measurable degree. This is electrical impedance. These calculations connect j to the world of empirical science. Such calculations are very useful in electrical engineering.

I am not enough of a mathematician to tell you more about j. I can, however, tell you more about the way capacitors, resistors, and inductors interact in electrical networks. I have a system of analogies to the flow of water which helps to explain the invisible flow of electricity.

As far as the rest of math, mathematics has been invented to count things, and to measure things. Counting things and measuring things ties numbers to the real world.

AG Said: Most of science and abstract concepts just describe reality. They just represent reality in our brain. What reality is, we don't know - we are constantly learning and it keeps changing on us.

AG, yes science and abstract concepts describe reality. Before the human mind existed, there was no need for the word "reality" and no need for the concept of reality. The universe just proceeded in her own natural way.

So, if you like, we can define reality as the sum total of thoughts, concepts, and impressions which are held in a human mind, or in a collection of human minds.

If you go outside at night with a mirror in your hand, you can often tilt it until you see an image of the moon reflected in the mirror. Scientists call this a virtual image. From the sun to the moon, from the moon to the mirror, from the mirror to your eyes. Sunlight in your eyes.

A geologist will examine the world around him, and come up with new ideas. These ideas exist in his mind. The mineral sample that he just examined is not the same thing as the new idea that he just acquired, but they reflect each other. That new idea about geology will sit in the scientist's mind for a while, and then it will cause him to go out and take some new samples and run some more tests.

When he communicates his discoveries to other interested people, the discovery process is multiplied.

The object of study inspires ideas. The ideas inspire further studies of the object.

Back and forth, back and forth, the idea reflects the object, and the object reflects the idea. Learning proceeds, and the human race benefits.

Yes, something like that. I think, when we think about God, we reflect ourselves in our own mind - back and forth, just the way you described, projecting our selves onto something "out there" and back again.

I came across a few good quotes by Alan Watts yesterday:

"You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you."

"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."

"To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float."

"But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."

"Faith is a state of openness or trust."

"And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on."

"In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all."

"Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done; it's just doing it."

"Reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know."

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alanwatts252969.html#VYhjTFilLv2iwPvR.99

I have not heard of Alan Watts until yesterday, but these quotes reflect my thoughts quite well. And, of course, these are just opinions, so if these quotes don't make sense, that's fine.

AG Said, quoting Alan Watts: "But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."

AG, thank you, I had not seen this quote before.

In connection with this, read my "Extrapolation" message of September 15th of this year.

Then, look at this Shinedown video:

http://tinyurl.com/cgdvoe3

The "Extrapolation" is presented in prosaic language, similar to the style used in scientific journals.

The Shinedown video is an exuberant spectacle. Its message is presented in music and poetry. Its message for us is presented visually and metaphorically.

But see how the extrapolation works with the Shinedown video. See how the two together work with your quote from Alan Watts.

William said, "I'm having a debate with a christian who was my high school science teacher. I asked him: Is the Christian God testable? Is there anyway for a human to detect or understand a God exist via brain cognition. I think a yes or no answer will suffice. His answer: Two questions. No, God is not empirically testable. Second Question - yes

If anyone thinks about something they know exists an image of that thing will pop up in their mind. No familiar image pops into my head when I think about god. That's because I know there are no actual images of any god/gods, and clearly nothing is in my mind making me believe there is a god by nature. The only reason anyone accepts the idea that god/gods exist is because that's what they are told. There are pictures of god/gods that have no basis in fact, these images may pop up in someone's mind, but so does the image of Peter Pan.

William said, "I shouldn't have asked the second question because it's a minor loop hole. I believe he thinks that god exist in the mind only. I don't see how this can lead to a Christian god."

I don't either since the Christian god was part human & part god. It was not just a spirit.

William said, "I don't know how he would be able to get this information. The presupposition that this god is the christian one and not the muslim god. He says Jesus is his savior. Where or how could he get this information if god doesn't manifest in the physical world at least once."

If he's a Christian he got that information the same way all Christians get it - from someone or some Church. This information comes from listening to grotesque and fantastical prevarications.

William said, "Basically, he's making up his own rules and they are bullshit. It's what he must do as a scientist to hang on to the belief."

Very few scientists believe in god or the supernatural. I think what was said is that there is no tangible proof of any god/gods. God is a product of someone's mind.

William said, "He's created some messed up brand of Epistemological solipsism. PLease , help me with the second question. The testable one, is easy to hand him his hat, but the 2nd one is more challenging. Thanks William"

I don't know what you mean "hand him his hat" if he said there is no proof of a god that can be tested that's what "No, God is not empirically testable.." means.

So, What's the challenge about the second one? The answer's simple; God's a figment of the imagination!

We can always count on Linda to give her opinion. I often wonder if Linda is as clever as she believe herself to be, then I don't I see any books or debate tours with her name? I guess it is easy to criticize without actually being in the same room with that person. See, I can do that too. Can't wait to see what sarcastic comment and pejoratives will be sent my way. Wait for it.

Patrick said, "then I don't I see any books or debate tours with her name? I guess it is easy to criticize without actually being in the same room with that person. See, I can do that too."

The difference is you can't criticize the actual MATERIAL the people posting above were intelligently talking about-that's not "criticizing a person." You have to debate the facts with facts-obviously you didn't have any.

As for tours-when will the Patrick Tour be coming through? It looks like you are just plain jealous of a smart atheist-something this board sees often.

Emily,

It's an exquisite example of a beleeber who is incapable of answering or disputing what someone has said so they attack them personally. Everyone knows it.

Is there much difference in saying that god snapped his fingers and voila, the universe, and the scientific perspective of the big bang?

science pins its entire structure on the willingly ignored and overlooked fact that it is ignorant of anything that happened pre-big bang and is incapable of even trying to touch the idea -- so is science not asking for a snapping of the fingers when it comes to the big bang?

energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes form. this is a scientific law, which means that infinity exists which in itself should be evidence enough of the miracle of existence.

i don't view god as a single consciousness overlooking all other things; i believe we are god, all one consciousness, all is god, experiencing itself subjectively. the word 'god' has usually many negative connotations attached to it that pop into people's minds which lead them to think people like me are talking about a sort of king that sits on a throne.

Consciousness is the center of the universe; you are not separate from reality but you are the reality; you are a product of the universe.

Even in purely scientific terms, if we are a biproduct of evolutionary processes that means that we are the universe's way of experiencing itself; and if you replace the two words -- universe and god -- there is not much difference.

The problem with science is that it is a box; it asks for all information to go through it before it can be seen as 'truth' - the real Truth is that there is no one way or the only way and that science will always be limited by technology which means that there is always a limit to science -- thus science should not be taken as the entire truth but simply as being able to prove conclusively certain laws and constants of the universe. We don't invent truth; we Discover it.

The universe one experiences is a reflection of our imagination of it.

The reality one experiences is a mirror image of what we believe reality to be.

I like this post very much.

There seem to be some controversy regarding what was before the big bang. The controversy seems to be with the concept of time. Scientists seem to have hard time explaining what time is

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time#.UNIKvKKmc5A http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1947.pdf

Try to imagine that you are a photon moving at the speed of light. Time does not exist for photons. Clocks, oscillations, etc. are only possible for massive objects. Photon's clock does not change. Or, rather, photons do not have a clock. This means that, if you imagine yourself a photon, nothing changes or moves. The photons we detect from MBR are not coming from "deep space". They are here and now. Everything else does not seem to exist. Does it?

From: AG (Posted Dec 21, 2012 at 1:54 am) AG SAID: "I like this post very much."

LINDA SAID: I bet you do - it sounds like a religious experience mixed with a space odyssey. AG SAID: "There seem to be some controversy regarding what was before the big bang. The controversy seems to be with the concept of time. Scientists seem to have hard time explaining what time is http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time#.UNIKvKKmc5A http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1947.pdf

Until the early 1900s it was thought that the universe was fixed in size until Einstein changed all of that with his general relativity theory in 1915 that describes the nature of space, time, and gravity. Physicists realized that the universe started out from a tiny size. They realized that the universe had a beginning. Today most modern physicists agree that the origin of our universe was the "big bang". Modern astrophysicists agree that the Universe had a beginning and time had a beginning. At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator.

AG SAID: "Try to imagine that you are a photon moving at the speed of light. Time does not exist for photons. Clocks, oscillations, etc. are only possible for massive objects. Photon's clock does not change. Or, rather, photons do not have a clock. This means that, if you imagine yourself a photon, nothing changes or moves. The photons we detect from MBR are not coming from "deep space". They are here and now. Everything else does not seem to exist. Does it?

LINDA SAID: I recall someone thought (a subatomic particle) the electron exist without any proof (which is wrong) then we should believe in the existence of God. The universe is self-sufficient and self-explanatory and does not require an intelligent cause. No intelligent person would use some invisible thing for, which there is no explanation or theory, to prove or explain anything. I think the desperate promoting of belief in something without a shred of proof that it exists is because they need other people to believe their fantasy to convince themselves that it's real. That is how all religion has always operated and continues to grow. That's why it's so shocking when you find people presenting you with the unvarnished ugly facts about religion.

In order for time to be created it must be finite, and it would have had to be created before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, the laws of physics created such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If there was a "cause" that created the universe, then it existed before the universe, and if it created everything who created it. It did not create the Universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Time began at the Big Bang. At a singularity time is zero -all the laws of physics have broken down- we are inside of the singularity and time started at the Big Bang. People want to believe in a Creator that was "before" anything existed and that's why they argue that "nobody knows what was before the Big Bang" even though that implies that they do know.

AG Said: I like this post very much. There seem to be some controversy regarding what was before the big bang.

Chuck Says: Among competent scientists, there is no controversy regarding what was before the big bang. There are many people who pretend to be competent scientists, but they are not all as smart and honest as they pretend to be.

I say there is no controversy because speculation and imagination without data and theories is not good enough to qualify as scientific controversy. In the same way, the existence of Creationism and Intelligent Design do not make Darwinian Evolution controversial. Telling simple-minded lies is not an adequate challenge to scientific data and theories.

Steven Hawking Says: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

Read Hawking's description here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

AG Said: The controversy seems to be with the concept of time. Scientists seem to have hard time explaining what time is.

Chuck Says: AG, I am a scientist, and I can give you an easy-to-understand definition of time.

"Time is a comparison and a correlation among things that proceed in an ongoing way."

Example: In ancient times, a farmer would plow the fields all day long, and he would want to know how well he is proceeding with the task. He would also want to know when it is time for his noontime and evening meals. Checking the position of the sun in the sky is helpful in keeping track of time. Just looking at the sky might be enough, or a sundial might be used for greater precision.

The farmer is correlating the progress of two ongoing events. More and more of the plowing is accomplished, and at the same time, the earth continues to rotate on its axis making it appear that the sun is arcing across the sky. A couple of meals are eaten, and the farmer wants to get home to his meals on time.

Today, we have very accurate clocks and watches to act as a time reference as we go about our daily business. We get to our appointments on time because we want to coordinate our ongoing progress throughout the day with the ongoing progress of the people we are meeting. This makes our lives more efficient. Our clocks and watches help us to coordinate the events in our lives with other people's ongoing events.

The foregoing explanation applies to our ordinary experiences, at ordinary speeds. When things start to move very fast, (near the speed of light), then Einstein's Special Relativity and E = mc2 become relevant.

Michio Kaku Says: http://tinyurl.com/byn8aty

AG Says: Try to imagine that you are a photon moving at the speed of light. Time does not exist for photons. Clocks, oscillations, etc. are only possible for massive objects. Photon's clock does not change. Or, rather, photons do not have a clock. This means that, if you imagine yourself a photon, nothing changes or moves. The photons we detect from MBR are not coming from "deep space". They are here and now. Everything else does not seem to exist. Does it?

Chuck Says: AG, now you are indulging in pseudoscientific bullshit. When you don't understand, you should admit that you don't understand. You shouldn't be so dishonest, or (as you have admitted), a hypocrite.

Please review the Michio Kaku article and give up your Try to imagine . . . malarkey. If it turns out that you do not understand Einstein and Kaku, then please admit that you don't understand. That would be the honest thing to do.

As for the Discover Magazine article that you have referred to, it is obvious to me that the author, Tim Folger is not a competent and honest scientist. He is a journalist. He has concocted a dishonest and sensationalistic headline. The story that follows is a combination of scientific fact and journalistic deceit. The promised "Newsflash" is not justified in this poorly written story. Do not believe that everything claiming to be science is really science. Over the centuries, real science has acquired such a golden reputation that all sorts of quacks and charlatans plaster the label of "science" onto all sorts of fraud and stupidity.

Do not buy into this stuff, and do not expect me to believe it, either. In other words, AG, wise up.

Why does a scientist need to look at a science blog for answers? I thought Stepehen Hawking climed that there was no time before and that is why "before" is not considered.

Nathaniel Said: Why does a scientist need to look at a science blog for answers?

Chuck Says: A clever scientist looks for questions and looks for answers wherever they may be found. A blog is fair game.

Nathaniel Said: I thought Stephen Hawking claimed that there was no time before and that is why "before" is not considered.

Chuck Says: I found this quote in many places on the internet, and it was attributed to Steven Hawking:

"When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It's like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn't have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise."

If Steven Hawking really did say this, then he has contradicted himself. This is not shocking to me, Hawking is only human. I have never had the impulse to kneel before him or to kiss his ring.

My January 11th quote "simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them" is the one which makes logical and scientific sense to me.

Scientists, as well as other people, should not pretend that they know things that they really don't know. To me, asserting that time did not exist before the Big Bang is not justified.

To me, the best guess is that matter and energy did exist before the Big Bang, and events did unfold. Such matter, energy, and ongoing events that might have existed are hidden from our present-day scientific observation.

Our everyday experiences and our scientific observations agree that matter and energy do not "come from nowhere" within the universe that we can observe. It makes sense to expect that the massive singularity of 13.75 billion years ago came from some previous system of matter and energy. We cannot say more at this time, because we have no data to base our theories upon.

Some of this "cosmic mystery" can be solved by simply using the English language in a clear and unambiguous way.

An Example: If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

"Sound is the information that the human mind receives through the hearing system." This definition says that the tree does not make a sound.

"Sound is mechanical vibrations in a solid, liquid, or gaseous medium." This definition says that the tree does make a sound.

Be clear in your thinking, and in your use of language, and some "cosmic mysteries" will then vanish.

Chuck Johnson (Posted Jan 11, 2013 at 12:50 am)

CHUCK SAYS: "Among competent scientists, there is no controversy regarding what was before the big bang. There are many people who pretend to be competent scientists, but they are not all as smart and honest as they pretend to be."

LINDA SAID, There are theories that our universe is within a multiverse where other universes are constantly popping into existence. But those other universes may have completely different physical properties from our universe. There is evidence that our universe has limits, but none for a multiverse. However, they are using (CMB) disc imaging that shows a universe collision, which creates an anomaly in the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) temperature map (that can actually be measured) another collision representation shows a hot spot or the presence of a universe's edge colliding with ours. And there are different theories about time; some physicists think time is infinite and others don't. But none of that is a controversy about the standard big bang theory that says the universe began with a singularity that is still expanding; there are always new theories, and these new theories suggest the big bang is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs. It also means that the universe would be a lot older, it must be at least a trillion years old with many big bangs happening before our own. There doesn't have to be a beginning of time according to some theories, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large. And if we are around for any collisions in the future we will disintegrate into mass-less particles of light.

CHUCK SAYS: "Steven Hawking Says: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

LINDA SAID, Stephen Hawking said, "....the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the big bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the earth: the earth is a sphere -it doesn't have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and my view is that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: there is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful."

LINDA SAID: There was nothing "before" because there was no time for it to exist in before the Big Bang, but if there was something explain where it was before time. What is being looked for is where the singularity that expanded into the universe came from. Modern physicists' theories are that the universe began with a singularity that started to expand. Although the conditions of that expansion in space are too high in energy to reproduce on earth, we can observe their signatures, transmitted over the eons by their imprint on the relic matter we can still detect from that era. The Big Bang is estimated to be roughly 14 billion years old. Astronomers calculated this figure by measuring the composition of matter and energy density in the universe, which enabled them to determine how fast the universe expanded in the past. As a result, researchers could turn back the hands of time and pinpoint when the Big Bang occurred. The time in between that explosion and now makes up the age of the universe. Modern physics has given us the theory that the Universe "came into existence out of nothing". With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. There was no matter as we know it in the time leading up to the Big Bang, but there was a concentration of energy that began to expand at some point. The 'Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and physicist Leonard Mlodinow say that a new series of theories made a creator of the universe unnecessary. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered." According to the British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

Physicist Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling concept: From a random quantum fluctuation the universe tunneled from pure vacuum to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation. The space inside a bubble of false vacuum is curved, or warped, and a small amount of energy is stored in that curvature. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. The bubble then inflated exponentially and its curvature energy transformed into matter and radiation. Inflation stopped and the more linear Big Bang expansion commenced.

CHUCK SAYS: AG, I am a scientist, and I can give you an easy-to-understand definition of time.

LINDA SAID, I don't think Chuck, that your example has anything to do with the time discussed in that Discovery article or what AG's is talking about. It's about the efforts to understand time below the Planck scale. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. The Ferenc Krausz of Vienna University of Technology, and a group he led, used pulses of laser light to watch electrons moving around atoms, and were able to distinguish events that took place 100 attoseconds - or 10^-16 seconds apart. These clocked intervals were the shortest time intervals ever observed. The way to explain time in this frame of reference (faster than speed of light) is that the effect of special relativity is that objects appear shorter and shorter as you travel faster and faster. Also, time seems to pass more and more slowly as you go faster. We can't see this because we don't move at any speed close to the speed of light, a way of looking at it is that if you go fast enough, you start converting time into space. The laws of physics are invariant with respect to translations in space and displacements in time. These are the symmetries of space-time. Of these symmetries, the most fundamental principles of physics follow, such as conservation of energy and momentum. Lorentz invariance is everything we know about the structure of space-time. Then, if the structure of space-time breaks down at the Planck scale, we should see violations of Lorentz invariance.

Light started traveling at the moment of the big bang, about 14 billion years ago, and so we can't see any further than about 14 billion light-years (a bit farther, since space is expanding). This volume of space is called the Hubble volume and represents our observable universe. In the standard interpretation of the Big Bang, the formative event was not an explosion in space and time it was an explosion of space and time, and in this view time did not exist beforehand. The universe began in a state of near-infinite density and temperature. At such extremes the known laws of physics break down. To push all the way back to the beginning of time, physicists needed a new theory, one that blended general relativity with quantum mechanics. That new theory is string theory that is an approach for reconciling the relativity and quantum views, like the versions of string theory that posits seven hidden dimensions of space in addition to the three we experience.

Chuck, I used the article as an example. I've read similar thoughts in other sources. E.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1947 or Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time".

Re: "Time is a comparison and a correlation among things that proceed in an ongoing way." Example: In ancient times, a farmer would plow the fields all day long, and he would want to know how well he is proceeding with the task. He would also want to know when it is time for his noontime and evening meals. Checking the position of the sun in the sky is helpful in keeping track of time. Just looking at the sky might be enough, or a sundial might be used for greater precision. "

Yes, you need a physical process involving massive objects (Sun, Earth, a pendulum, an oscillating crystal, water, sand, or an atom) for concepts of time and space to make sense. I don't think, space, time, and mass can be considered independently of each other.

Rugh and Zinkernagel write in section 2 of the article from the link above about the difficulties involved with definition of time. It is, perhaps, impossible to define what time is without involving a concept which itself relies on the definition of time. For example, your definition relies on "things that proceed in an ongoing way". What exactly does it mean? Can you define it without using the concept of time?

I admit that I do not understand how to define time. It's something very fundamental to our existence. It's, perhaps, as hard as explaining what "self" is.

Re: "Please review the Michio Kaku article and give up your Try to imagine . . . malarkey."

First sentence from Michio Kaku article: "Imagine a police officer chasing after a speeding motorist."

From: Trevor (Posted Dec 18, 2012 at 3:35 am)

TREVOR SAID: "Is there much difference in saying that god snapped his fingers and voila, the universe, and the scientific perspective of the big bang?"

LINDA SAID: "God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God. God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics."

TREVOR SAID: "science pins its entire structure on the willingly ignored and overlooked fact that it is ignorant of anything that happened pre-big bang and is incapable of even trying to touch the idea -- so is science not asking for a snapping of the fingers when it comes to the big bang?"

LINDA SAID: At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator."

TREVOR SAID: "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes form. this is a scientific law, which means that infinity exists which in itself should be evidence enough of the miracle of existence."

LINDA SAID: Mathematicians have worked on the "Theory of Relativity" and its implications regarding the notion of time.According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Singularity by definition is zero size. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero. Before the big bang there was nothing - after the big bang there was everything there ever was are will be. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered. According to the British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and physicist Leonard Mlodinow say that a new series of theories made a creator of the universe unnecessary. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

TREVOR SAID: "i don't view god as a single consciousness overlooking all other things; i believe we are god, all one consciousness, all is god, experiencing itself subjectively. the word 'god' has usually many negative connotations attached to it that pop into people's minds which lead them to think people like me are talking about a sort of king that sits on a throne.

LINDA SAID, "No, people like me think you are making statements without giving one shred of evidence that any of it is true. It's just something you think. Opinions are not facts.

TREVOR SAID: "Consciousness is the center of the universe; you are not separate from reality but you are the reality; you are a product of the universe."

LINDA SAID: Carl Sagan stated in an episode of Cosmos. "So, all life on Earth and the atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of now-long-dead stars, he said."Carl Sagan. "The universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out. "We are star stuff which has taken its destiny into its own hands" A PERSONAL VOYAGE -- JOURNEYS IN SPACE AND TIME -by Carl Sagan- "What we do with our world right now will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants. It is well within our power to destroy our civilization, and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition, or greed, or stupidity, we can plunge our world into a darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth, to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet, to enhance enormously our understanding of the universe and to carry us to the stars."

LINDA SAID: And it's really pathetic that all they are really looking for is another way to believe in hoodoo.

TREVOR SAID: "Even in purely scientific terms, if we are a biproduct of evolutionary processes that means that we are the universe's way of experiencing itself; and if you replace the two words -- universe and god -- there is not much difference."

LINDA SAID: There is a lot of difference! The Universe exists and we can prove that it exists -nobody has proven any god exists.

TREVOR SAID: "The problem with science is that it is a box; it asks for all information to go through it before it can be seen as 'truth' - the real Truth is that there is no one way or the only way and that science will always be limited by technology which means that there is always a limit to science -- thus science should not be taken as the entire truth but simply as being able to prove conclusively certain laws and constants of the universe. We don't invent truth; we Discover it."

Oh! GEE! I believe I said scientists don't make up diseases that don't exist - and they couldn't have cured millions of people who otherwise would have died if they did. What has religion done for them. Scientists don't make up theories and then go looking for the evidence, but guess what does? Yes, it's myths and superstition.

TREVOR SAID: "The universe one experiences is a reflection of our imagination of it."

That sounds like one of your typical religious experiences. The Universe is much more provable than that.

TREVOR SAID: "The reality one experiences is a mirror image of what we believe reality to be."

Prove that! If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God.

Linda said "Prove that! If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God."

God created Himself! How? Scientifically! If you want all scientific details on this matter, all technologies used in creating GOD, you should understand first all human science, which might represent 1% of the whole science, plus the rest 99% of the science, at the moment unimaginable by humanity. Then you will understand how God created Himself. We should know that the Bible is not a technical book about how God created one or another thing or how He made one or another miracle. These are technical details which He partially revealed us through the Science.

From: George (Posted Jan 23, 2013 at 8:45 am) Linda said "Prove that! If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God."

GEORGE SAID: "God created Himself! How? Scientifically!

LINDA SAID: If it's scientific there shouldn't be any problem with giving the details.

GEORGE SAID: "If you want all scientific details on this matter, all technologies used in creating GOD, you should understand first all human science, which might represent 1% of the whole science, plus the rest 99% of the science, at the moment unimaginable by humanity."

LINDA SAID: Oh! You have your own science? It's the unimaginable science. Well, let me tell you what the difference is. The science I'm referring to has experiments like the LHC and reasoning behind them like physics and all that evidence tells us why it's accurate, and that evidence can be examined by others to prove it's correct. You expect people to believe what you are saying without giving them any proof. Just because you fell for that doesn't mean that anyone else has to.

GEORGE SAID: "Then you will understand how God created Himself. We should know that the Bible is not a technical book about how God created one or another thing or how He made one or another miracle. These are technical details which He partially revealed us through the Science."

LINDA SAID: No, the Bible has been proven wrong by science on anything scientific that it tried to explain - many things. And yes, we have to explain in minute detail where the singularity came from. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling concept: From a random quantum fluctuation the universe tunneled from pure vacuum to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation. The space inside a bubble of false vacuum is curved, or warped, and a small amount of energy is stored in that curvature. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. The bubble then inflated exponentially and its curvature energy transformed into matter and radiation. Inflation stopped and the more linear Big Bang expansion commenced. While George, on the other hand doesn't need to prove a thing! That's because it isn't science it's creationism, you're throwing religious drivel into a scientific debate and calling it science, and you are not telling anyone where you got your information from or providing evidence that any of it is true.

LINDA SAID: "Oh! You have your own science? It's the unimaginable science. Well, let me tell you what the difference is..."

You are talking about that 1% of the known science...but you are far, far from knowing the rest; this is the problem... You say there is no God, no spirit of Truth, Love and Justice in the Univers...oh poor vision of life, oh, poor creature... You might one day fall in hands of people without God to see how is a world without truth, love and merci...

George,

I hope, you can see the hypocrisy of your own words. I have multiple objections:

Re: "You are talking about that 1% of the known science..."

We can only talk about what we know. It's best not to talk about what we do not know except just stating that we don't know it. What you say implies that you possess some knowledge that other people do not possess, and you don't. To me, it's OK to have beliefs, but we must not confuse them with knowledge or assume that our beliefs are superior to anyone else's.

Re: "oh poor vision of life, oh, poor creature..."

I can assure you that people in this forum do not need your pity. It's condescending. It comes from pride and assuming that your beliefs and "vision of life" are superior. And "pride goes before destruction" as you will shortly understand after Linda replies to your post.

Re: "You might one day fall in hands of people without God to see how is a world without truth, love and merci..."

This can be interpreted as a threat. I'm sure, you didn't mean it this way, but I suggest that you be aware of it. Also, people in this forum have quite convincing evidence that it is the "people of God" who often show no truth, love, or merci. So, assuming that you belong to the camp of "loving" and "merciful" and others don't doesn't make you so.

Luke 18:

"9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

And, of course, I am judging you here, so, I'm a hypocrite too - I have made the same mistakes.

Hi AG!

I am not judging someone but what he/she says. Bible says many times to judge what others say or do, but not to judge harshly the person; for example, I hate the habbit of drinking of my friend, and I judge he is wrong doing this, but I still love him and I am trying to help him; If I give up to him, he might be lost forever...

George,

Do you think it's possible to help a person who does not think he has a problem and does not want to be helped? If so, how do you do that?

From: George (Posted Jan 30, 2013 at 2:08 am)

GEORGE SAID: "Hi AG! I am not judging someone but what he/she says. Bible says many times to judge what others say or do, but not to judge harshly the person; for example, I hate the habbit of drinking of my friend, and I judge he is wrong doing this, but I still love him and I am trying to help him; If I give up to him, he might be lost forever..."

LINDA SAID: All fanatics interpret the bible the way you do - they are always right - and everyone else is wrong.

Hey George, the same thing that attracts people to a drunks is the same thing that attracts them to an abusive religion. Your little pal that drinks probably isn't as sick as you are - and not nearly as dumb!

From: AG (Posted Jan 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm) AG SAID: "George, I hope, you can see the hypocrisy of your own words. I have multiple objections: Re: "You are talking about that 1% of the known science..."

LINDA SAID: No, he is stating that our current science is only 1% of what his unimaginable god science knows. Although, he can't answer a single thing pertaining to science or anything else. What made him an authority on anything?

AG SAID: "We can only talk about what we know. It's best not to talk about what we do not know except just stating that we don't know it."

LINDA SAID: That depends on what it is that you are claiming we don't know. Some of the things that are not known by religious fanatics because their minds shut down when anything rocks their boat (or challenge their brainwashing) doesn't mean that nobody knows and I've seen them argue that nobody knows things that we do know.

AG SAID: "What you say implies that you possess some knowledge that other people do not possess, and you don't. To me, it's OK to have beliefs, but we must not confuse them with knowledge or assume that our beliefs are superior to anyone else's."

LINDA SAID: He's not the only one making these kinds of claims but if they had any evidence to back them up they would present them like Darwin did with evolution.

AG: (QUOTES GEOREGE) "Re: "oh poor vision of life, oh, poor creature..."

AG SAID: "I can assure you that people in this forum do not need your pity. It's condescending. It comes from pride and assuming that your beliefs and "vision of life" are superior. And "pride goes before destruction" as you will shortly understand after Linda replies to your post."

LINDA SAID: Well, at least they have found out that they can't get by with this crap - but that's about all they have learned.

AG: (QUOTES GEOREGE) Re: "You might one day fall in hands of people without God to see how is a world without truth, love and merci..."

AG SAID: " This can be interpreted as a threat. I'm sure, you didn't mean it this way, but I suggest that you be aware of it. Also, people in this forum have quite convincing evidence that it is the "people of God" who often show no truth, love, or merci. So, assuming that you belong to the camp of "loving" and "merciful" and others don't doesn't make you so.

LINDA SAID: Who are you trying to kid? I'm sure it was meant as a threat! It's just like if you don't believe in your imaginary Lord and Master you are going to burn in hell forever; that's a threat. This is the real message of Christianity - it's all about becoming a slave.

AG SAID: "Luke 18: "9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed abouta himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' 13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' 14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." And, of course, I am judging you here, so, I'm a hypocrite too - I have made the same mistakes."

LINDA SAID: Most of these verses are anti-Semitic. The picture of Jesus in the Greek Gospels, eating with tax-collectors, satirizing the traditions of the Jews, welcoming sinners and ridiculing Torah piety are all expressions of antisemitism. The Romans were at war with the Jews and had nothing but contempt for Judaism, and that is the reason to have Jesus behaving in this manner. It is for this same reason the New Testament has Jerusalem destroyed because her people had rejected the messiah, when in fact they were fighting a war against the Romans over slavery. This is all Hellenistic antisemitism. Christianity is a Gentile mission concocted by the Romans to assimilate the Jews and all other religions. It was the synchronism of pagan and Jewish religions.

From: George (Posted Jan 26, 2013 at 1:08 am) GEORGE QUOTES LINDA: "Oh! You have your own science? It's the unimaginable science. Well, let me tell you what the difference is..."

LINDA SAID: George conveniently left this off of that quote (LINDA SAID) The science I'm referring to has experiments like the LHC and reasoning behind them like physics and all that evidence tells us why it's accurate, and that evidence can be examined by others to prove it's correct. You expect people to believe what you are saying without giving them any proof. Just because you fell for that doesn't mean that anyone else has to. And we all know why you left that out don't we - you have no evidence or you would present it.

GEORGE SAID: "You are talking about that 1% of the known science...but you are far, far from knowing the rest; this is the problem..."

LINDA SAID: A superior being with such advanced science that He can't communicate his presence or ideas to everyone on earth? How can He be Omnipotent"? When myths about savior god/men were circulating the common people had no knowledge of modern medicine, they were told that disease was the result of sin, or punishment by God John 5:13-15; Luke 13:11; Deuteronomy 28:27-29. Mental illness was demon possession (Matthew 9:32-34), or was a punishment from God (1 Samuel 16:14-16). They believed that miracles preformed by holy men or God, could cure the victim Acts 5:15-16; 19:11-12. Bacteria, viruses and psychoses, the real causes of illnesses, were unknown, as were the causes of natural phenomena like lightening striking, floods or earthquakes. The common man in the time of the Jesus myth were ignorant, superstitious and gullible when it came to understanding nature and disease. The gospel myths relate that the man named Jesus had the same understanding of nature and disease as the people of his day. I don't consider that very convincing evidence that he was a superior being or a Prophet. As far as superior knowledge goes, the bible was obviously written by underachievers even for ancient times. Centuries before the oldest books of the bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated pi to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible…divinely inspired…offers an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Adam was the first man, made (according to the Bible) about less than 6,000 years ago. Every scientist knows that human beings have been on the earth at least a half-million years, probably more. In Genesis 1:11, plants are created. Later, in Genesis 1:13, God makes the sun/moon/stars. Well, how can plants live without sunlight? One possible explanation God created a (sun lamp) for the plants. Joshua's - God made the sun stand still and it stood still. This does show how little they knew about laws of the universe. They thought that if the sun stood still night wouldn't come. We know that day or night come by the revolution of the earth on its axis. This is obvious to anyone. The closest star to the earth is more than a billion miles away, but the bible claims that a star was standing still and hovering over a manger. If any star came that near the earth or anywhere near the earth, it would immediately disarrange the whole solar system. Anybody who can believe this fairytale isn't using reason. You must accept this stuff on faith alone because reason won't lead you to it! Get rid of all your knowledge and all your common sense too?

GEORGE SAID: "You say there is no God, no spirit of Truth, Love and Justice in the Univers...oh poor vision of life, oh, poor creature... "

LINDA SAID: "Why don't you stop trying to revise something into an argument you think you can win. You must not have the guts to post what I said and not what you said? I never said anything about there not being any truth but I would tell everyone that religion is nothing but chicanery. I have said many times there is nothing spiritual or supernatural because it's failed every test, however, nobody but you said that there was no truth. And it has been proven by testing that religion doesn't make any society better, if anything it makes it worse. Science has much more to do with using reason to find what is true or "right" than being "right." Scientists decide if something is possible or logical based on the evidence. If religion was about the evidence or what's real then it wouldn't be called faith, it would be the facts.

GEORGE SAID: "You might one day fall in hands of people without God to see how is a world without truth, love and merci..."

LINDA SAID: It's far more likely for someone to get taken in by a phony wearing a cross big enough to crucify a cat on their chest. I've found that the bigger the cross the bigger the crook! So save the threats for someone a whole lot dumber. Furthermore, people have the "right" to live as rational beings, morals come from the ability to reason. We don't believe that God gave morality to humanity; that makes religion unnecessary to have morality. Traits that help a species to survive are passed to the next generation, and traits that don't will die out. If the trait to be serial killers was passed on that species would be done for. The basic adaptation possessed by humans for survival is reasoning ability; an evolutionary ethics would make this a primary consideration. Most of us have an innate moral sense which is genetically coded into us as a direct result of over one hundred thousand years of physical and social evolution. With the exception of some mutant psychopaths who run a muck killing. Religion has done nothing for them and that's provable. What evidence is there for the existence of any god (there is no evidence) all you have is dogma. Atheists are not trying to prove anything about something for which there is no evidence.

I'm not telling anyone what they need to believe me in order to keep from burning in Hell forever. I'm also not suggesting that they should destroy other peoples places of worship or telling them that they should burn witches. And that's just a couple of reasons I like to keep my distance from people that do.

It's been interesting watching someone attack and insult someone who threatens their phantasmagoria of magic and weird fiction, because they just can't handle the truth. As far as anyone falling into the hands of dishonest people (don't look now) but we are talking to either the most delusional or dishonest people (I don't know which one) I've ever encountered on this message board. Religion sanctified slavery and any number of immoral acts too numerous to mention. Some of us don't need threats to do what's right, but all that the thumpers have going for them are the threats of people running a muck. To insist that God made people moral is to insist that something exists (and did something) without any means of detecting what the something is. Any feature of reality that our minds or senses cannot possibly perceive directly or indirectly is meaningless as an answer to any question. And provides no basis for rational consideration. Studies have compared the industrial countries that are non-religious to the most religious, and they found that the less religious are far less violent, better educated and have much more social justice. While the most religious are poor, backward, unjust and thoroughly corrupt.

LINDA SAID: "If it's scientific there shouldn't be any problem with giving the details. "

GEORGE SAID: Oh, poor Linda. You think like a child, sorry. Do you or me deserve to know such powerful technology? Do you think the humanity deserve to know more than we know? Do you think we deserve anything? What would did happen if Hitler or Osama Bin Laden were having the technology for creating an atomic bomb? Can you imagine bad people to have all technology and power they want? I sometimes think that God allowed us to know more than we are able to carry.

LINDA SAID: "No, the Bible has been proven wrong by science on anything scientific that it tried to explain - many things."

GEORGE SAID: I am afraid you are wrong. Tell me one thing here.

Oh, my... If anyone deserves pity here it's you, George. You will understand why shortly. Let me step aside before the tsunami comes... Good luck. :-)

From: George (Posted Jan 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm) GEORGE QUOTES LINDA: "If it's scientific there shouldn't be any problem with giving the details. " GEORGE SAID: "Oh, poor Linda. You think like a child, sorry."

LINDA SAID: I'm not the one poking holes in the ceiling with my finger and talking to an imaginary being. You're putting the highest value on something that never talks to you or gives you the time of day. At least I'm not so stupid that I tell people things that they know is absurd to advocate belief. How can "something" or "anything" that is illogical or contradicts the evidence lead to a better life? Rape, pillage and burn your neighbor - while loving them - Charlie Manson style. Things don't get better with half-baked ideas that don't work. It's because we are evolving and acquiring knowledge that we have a better life.

Who thinks that that there never was a rainbow before Noah's flood? And isn't drowning a rather cruel way to kill people even if they were wicked? Joshua 10:12-14: god made the sun and moon stand still. God in all his wisdom doesn't know that the sun does not orbit the earth. The sunrise is an optical illusion that the primitive men who wrote the bible didn't understand. People who sit in a room every Sunday and listen to someone teach from a book that is nothing but OCD style repetition that a child could understand needs to figure out what is wrong with them, not everybody else. What you think about me doesn't interest me in fucking least! I would like to see your rebuttal.

Atheists are just facing the truth even if it's not what they wanted, instead of just believing a pack of sweet little lies. I'm not putting out addled insulting remarks or biblical insanity, which isn't knowledge or a rebuttal.

GEORGE SAID: "Do you or me deserve to know such powerful technology? Do you think the humanity deserve to know more than we know?

LINDA SAID: Deserve to know more? I hope your not implying that what religion has to offer! If you are I hate to rain on your happy ass daydream but people don't become atheists because somebody told them there was no god, and they just believe them, they actually became atheists because of what they have learned and by thinking for themselves. What you're advocating doesn't require one scintilla of critical thinking; it requires belief You're not 'different' from most believers who either ignore or make excuses for all the contradictions and errors in a book that was supposed to be inspired by a Superior Being or your Lord and Master. There is no validity or logic in superstition or supernatural beliefs because these kinds of beliefs have no basis or foundation in fact, the only reason some people are still caught up in this hokum is because of mind-control. There's something better in that?

A half-ass examination shows that Genesis is not accurate in the order of creation or about when and how life appeared. It is not! God couldn't get the order right! Religious teachers of all stripes can't demonstrate how the order of creation in Genesis works? Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" Genesis 1:3 "Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light." These verses say that light was made after the water and that earth already existed; that's wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being. Genesis 1:2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know from scientific studies that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the firmament is plainly wrong.

Religion has done nothing to enlighten any society and that's provable. What evidence is there for the existence of any god (there is no evidence) all you have is dogma. Atheists are not trying to prove anything about something for which there is no evidence. Now you can make excuses for the obvious ignorance by claiming that it's a divine science but only an idiot doesn't know that's a cover-up.

GEORGE SAID: "Do you think we deserve anything? What would did happen if Hitler or Osama Bin Laden were having the technology for creating an atomic bomb?

LINDA SAID: Both of them were religious fanatics, and don't worry about any brainwashed fanatic doing anything that's very difficult to figure out. But what the hell has technology got to do with an archaic religion with no determinable intelligence of any kind behind it. Your dubious beliefs (or religion) has nothing to offer in terms of morality; your morality doesn't include having a genuinely good reason to believe something in the first place. Illiterate and uneducated primitive men wrote the bible babble and as man became educated they knew it was drivel and that's why it takes extreme coercion to keep that information from (what politicians call folks) or the uneducated population. You need to come up with some proof that what you believe is based in fact instead of trying to coerce someone with threats, and I already know that there's not one shred of evidence or any reason to believe that it's anything but fiction.

GEORGE SAID: Can you imagine bad people to have all technology and power they want? I sometimes think that God allowed us to know more than we are able to carry."

LINDA SAID: Society Without God - By Sociologist Phil Zuckerman Winner of the 2008 Foreword Magazine Book of the Year Award, Religion Category -Sociologist Phil Zuckerman spent a year in Scandinavia: He found that most residents of Denmark and Sweden don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer. BOOKS: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe Greg Epstein The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture Darrel W. Ray Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion by Phil Zuckerman ARTICLES: Current Affairs: Denmark may be ranked number one in the happiness category, but when it comes to religion, Danes find themselves nearly in last place. Thursday, December 1st, 2011 Year after year, Danes continues to draw international attention as "the happiest people in the world." Interestingly enough, they are also one of the least religious, with only a small portion of the population attending church on a regular basis and atheism running strong. literacy in some of the least religious was at 99% and literacy in some of the most religious were around 40.9%.

GEORGE QUOTES LINDA : "No, the Bible has been proven wrong by science on anything scientific that it tried to explain - many things." GEORGE SAID: I am afraid you are wrong. Tell me one thing here.

(Joshua 10:13) Joshua prayed to God. He asked God to make the sun stand still. This event would have been worldwide. You would think that this would have been reported, recorded and discussed from then on. It would have been passed on orally, and then eventually written down in the history books. But, there is not one single record of this. The only account of the longest day in history of the world comes from Joshua, and he writes only a paragraph to tell the world of the most astonishing event ever witnessed by the entire population of the world. The unscientific story of Joshua asking God to make the sun stand still, is nonsense. The clergy has encouraged Christians to oppose fact finding, and questioning. It's of the devil! That's why they don't look for answers when they are as easy to find as reading any scholarly work. God making the earth stand still is the only way it wouldn't get dark, which of coarse would cause a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Furthermore, the Church on the basis of biblical verses like Joshua 10:13 that indicate the Sun revolves around the Earth, prevented any other theory from being subjected to scientific investigation for over 1000 years.

Science makes everyone aware of the fact that the verses in Genesis were not inspired by a superior being. Genesis (7:11-12; 8:2) the sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds water or stars up in the sky. But there is dark matter.

(The Bible On Astronomy) - Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth? The Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth - The Sunrise is an optical illusion.

The Bible - (On Medicine) - Leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan. Science - The disease leprosy is caused by infection with Mycobacterium leprae. We also know how to cure it.

The Bible - (Math) - I Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other - it was round all about, and its height was five cubits - and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. There is a formula in mathematics that never varies for the circumference of circular objects. It's not 30 ft. C = ð2r, in which ð is about 3.1416

Evolution is happening and evolution will continue to happen! We have studied evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory, we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment, and in some cases biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. That's why evolution is a fact. There is an abundance of evidence besides a very good fossil record. From the march 2009 issue Of Discover Magazine - DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right - Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time - By observing how the genes changed during the course of embryonic development, scientists could track the emergence of a novel physical trait, the first step toward the creation of a new species. For the first time, researchers had direct access to the machinery of evolution and could actually watch it in the act. A new science, known as evolutionary developmental biology, or evo devo, was born.

Creation, which circumvents the scientific method in order to resolve questions about the origin of the universe and the origin of humans. But Creation is not science and there is no theory. Creationists suggests that evolution is guided by a supernatural intelligence without defining what it is. That is not a theory and it's sure not science.

The Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, that is the opinion of the leading theoretical physicists at the present time, and all of their observations so far support the Big Bang theory. Evidence that was discovered is how the Big Bang Theory was arrived at, it was not the other way around, they didn't create a theory (or a story) without any evidence, unlike the Creation story in Genesis (all religions have one) and they are all actually based upon various myths. The evidence should come first, and then the evidence should be used to come up with a theory. There is no evidence for Creation (nothing was created) everything evolved over a very long period of time.

You're trying to give credibility to a lot of hooey by claiming that ideas that came from ancient illiterates represent a science that is superior to the science of modern man because it's the only way to worm your way out of the fact that it's completely wrong and thoroughly ignorant. You're claiming that the Big Bang Theory or scientific theories have less credibility than your unimaginable science of religion ideas. I'm giving scientific evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution and you are giving none. I'm sure you think science is just the same as saying you just believe it - but it's not. You only think that because of your ignorance. A theory is not credible unless it can be tested. You have to define something and then be able to prove or disprove it. How do you test your little theories without palpable evidence? How do you know if these theories are correct? You can't discuss scientific theories because you obviously don't know enough about them so how is it that you understand a much more advanced science (that by the way you don't explain) we are just supposed to believe it's just there.

Most atheists know that it's because of science that people began to understand that everything evolved through natural processes and there is no reason to keep bowing and scraping to an imaginary sugar daddy in the sky. We know the universe evolved. It wasn't created by a Creator. Believers don't have to explain anything, they have never had a feasible theory about the origin of the universe or life in the universe (they don't have to have one since they don't try to understand anything) on the other hand atheists don't think "god did it" is a theory or an explanation. The bible reveals nothing but an exclusivity ideology bent on expansion in the name of God for social and political reasons. And they never have to explain any of the absurdities involved in the making of their religions?

The birth of a universe might simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, a creation out of nothing. If gravitational energy is negative, the energy required to make a universe is zero. Antimatter is supposed to be an exact counterpart to matter, down to the same mass. This has been recently verified when it was shown experimentally that a proton and an anti-proton have the same mass to within one part in 10 billion.2

The next time you unload a pile of crap on someone I hope they dump it on your head (to help you wake-up to reality) while it oozes down your face. I bet you know where you can go from here.

LINDA SAID: You're putting the highest value on something that never talks to you or gives you the time of day.

George said: This idea is wrong,sorry. I have talked to my God many times. Of course,if do not have the right Science you cannot do the same...you are wasting your energy dealing just with 1% of the Science...poor results will you have in the end and poor will be your soul after death. P.S. Generally I do not have time to read more than 10-20 rows from a message.

LINDA SAID: I'm posting your remarks again in all caps and maybe you can try to read your own remarks and answer my rebuttal. Not just one remark - that's the way it's done.

FROM: GEORGE (POSTED JAN 30, 2013 AT 1:58 AM) (GEORGE QUOTES LINDA) LINDA SAID: YOU'RE PUTTING THE HIGHEST VALUE ON SOMETHING THAT NEVER TALKS TO YOU OR GIVES YOU THE TIME OF DAY.

LINDA SAID: No, sorry George, but that's just a half-ass quote - and you made a remark first that was totally disgusting considering what a gibbering idiot you are.

FROM: GEORGE (POSTED JAN 27, 2013 AT 1:51 PM) GEORGE QUOTES LINDA: "IF IT'S SCIENTIFIC THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM WITH GIVING THE DETAILS. " GEORGE SAID: "OH, POOR LINDA. YOU THINK LIKE A CHILD, SORRY."

LINDA SAID: I'm not the one poking holes in the ceiling with my finger and talking to an imaginary being. You're putting the highest value on something that never talks to you or gives you the time of day. At least I'm not so stupid that I tell people things that they know is absurd to advocate belief. How can "something" or "anything" that is illogical or contradicts the evidence lead to a better life? Rape, pillage and burn your neighbor - while loving them - Charlie Manson style. Things don't get better with half-baked ideas that don't work. It's because we are evolving and acquiring knowledge that we have a better life. Who thinks that that there never was a rainbow before Noah's flood? And isn't drowning a rather cruel way to kill people even if they were wicked? Joshua 10:12-14: god made the sun and moon stand still. God in all his wisdom doesn't know that the sun does not orbit the earth. The sunrise is an optical illusion that the primitive men who wrote the bible didn't understand. People who sit in a room every Sunday and listen to someone teach from a book that is nothing but OCD style repetition that a child could understand needs to figure out what is wrong with them, not everybody else. What you think about me doesn't interest me in fucking least! I would like to see your rebuttal. Atheists are just facing the truth even if it's not what they wanted, instead of just believing a pack of sweet little lies. I'm not putting out addled insulting remarks or biblical insanity, which isn't knowledge or a rebuttal.

GEORGE SAID: "THIS IDEA IS WRONG,SORRY. I HAVE TALKED TO MY GOD MANY TIMES. OF COURSE,IF DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT SCIENCE YOU CANNOT DO THE SAME...YOU ARE WASTING YOUR ENERGY DEALING JUST WITH 1% OF THE SCIENCE...POOR RESULTS WILL YOU HAVE IN THE END AND POOR WILL BE YOUR SOUL AFTER DEATH. P.S. GENERALLY I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO READ MORE THAN 10-20 ROWS FROM A MESSAGE."

LINDA SAID: Well, that's not an answer to anything you have used as your argument. I have answered all of your remarks but you can't do the same. You claim the answer you got is wrong but you can't elaborate and tell anyone why it's wrong or give a rebuttal. When I do give you the evidence that proves what I'm saying you copy a sentence that's not even the answer to your idiotic remarks - and use it like it's the answer. It's not. You have a lot of work ahead you, but if you're too dumb to read the rebuttals after you claim someone is wrong and that you know a better science (that you don't seem to be able to explain) you need to stop posting period because you are a waste of time. Here is what you didn't answer:

(GEOREGE QUOTES LINDA LINDA SAID: "NO, THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG BY SCIENCE ON ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC THAT IT TRIED TO EXPLAIN - MANY THINGS." GEORGE SAID: I AM AFRAID YOU ARE WRONG. TELL ME ONE THING HERE.

LINDA SAID: A half-ass examination shows that Genesis is not accurate in the order of creation or about when and how life appeared. It is not! God couldn't get the order right! Religious teachers of all stripes can't demonstrate how the order of creation in Genesis works? Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" Genesis 1:3 "Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light." These verses say that light was made after the water and that earth already existed; that's wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being. Genesis 1:2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know from scientific studies that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the firmament is plainly wrong.

Religion has done nothing to enlighten any society and that's provable. What evidence is there for the existence of any god (there is no evidence) all you have is dogma. Atheists are not trying to prove anything about something for which there is no evidence. Now you can make excuses for the obvious ignorance by claiming that it's a divine science but only an idiot doesn't know that's a cover-up. (Joshua 10:13) Joshua prayed to God. He asked God to make the sun stand still. This event would have been worldwide. You would think that this would have been reported, recorded and discussed from then on. It would have been passed on orally, and then eventually written down in the history books. But, there is not one single record of this. The only account of the longest day in history of the world comes from Joshua, and he writes only a paragraph to tell the world of the most astonishing event ever witnessed by the entire population of the world. The unscientific story of Joshua asking God to make the sun stand still, is nonsense. The clergy has encouraged Christians to oppose fact finding, and questioning. It's of the devil! That's why they don't look for answers when they are as easy to find as reading any scholarly work. God making the earth stand still is the only way it wouldn't get dark, which of coarse would cause a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Furthermore, the Church on the basis of biblical verses like Joshua 10:13 that indicate the Sun revolves around the Earth, prevented any other theory from being subjected to scientific investigation for over 1000 years. Science makes everyone aware of the fact that the verses in Genesis were not inspired by a superior being. Genesis (7:11-12; 8:2) the sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds water or stars up in the sky. But there is dark matter.

(The Bible On Astronomy) - Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth? The Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth - The Sunrise is an optical illusion.

The Bible - (On Medicine) - Leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan. Science - The disease leprosy is caused by infection with Mycobacterium leprae. We also know how to cure it.

The Bible - (Math) - I Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other - it was round all about, and its height was five cubits - and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. There is a formula in mathematics that never varies for the circumference of circular objects. It's not 30 ft. (that's the bible's answer) It's C = pi2r, in which pi is about 3.1416

Evolution is happening and evolution will continue to happen! We have studied evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory, we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment, and in some cases biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. That's why evolution is a fact. There is an abundance of evidence besides a very good fossil record. From the march 2009 issue Of Discover Magazine - DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right - Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time - By observing how the genes changed during the course of embryonic development, scientists could track the emergence of a novel physical trait, the first step toward the creation of a new species. For the first time, researchers had direct access to the machinery of evolution and could actually watch it in the act. A new science, known as evolutionary developmental biology, or evo devo, was born.

Creation, which circumvents the scientific method in order to resolve questions about the origin of the universe and the origin of humans. But Creation is not science and there is no theory. Creationists suggests that evolution is guided by a supernatural intelligence without defining what it is. That is not a theory and it's sure not science.

The Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, that is the opinion of the leading theoretical physicists at the present time, and all of their observations so far support the Big Bang theory. Evidence that was discovered is how the Big Bang Theory was arrived at, it was not the other way around, they didn't create a theory (or a story) without any evidence, unlike the Creation story in Genesis (all religions have one) and they are all actually based upon various myths. The evidence should come first, and then the evidence should be used to come up with a theory. There is no evidence for Creation (nothing was created) everything evolved over a very long period of time.

You're trying to give credibility to a lot of hooey by claiming that ideas that came from ancient illiterates represent a science that is superior to the science of modern man because it's the only way to worm your way out of the fact that it's completely wrong and thoroughly ignorant. You're claiming that the Big Bang Theory or scientific theories have less credibility than your unimaginable science of religion ideas. I'm giving scientific evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution and you are giving none. I'm sure you think science is just the same as saying you just believe it - but it's not. You only think that because of your ignorance. A theory is not credible unless it can be tested. You have to define something and then be able to prove or disprove it. How do you test your little theories without palpable evidence? How do you know if these theories are correct? You can't discuss scientific theories because you obviously don't know enough about them so how is it that you understand a much more advanced science (that by the way you don't explain) we are just supposed to believe it's just there.

GEORGE SAID: "DO YOU THINK WE DESERVE ANYTHING? WHAT WOULD DID HAPPEN IF HITLER OR OSAMA BIN LADEN WERE HAVING THE TECHNOLOGY FOR CREATING AN ATOMIC BOMB?

LINDA SAID: Both of them were religious fanatics, and don't worry about any brainwashed fanatic doing anything that's very difficult to figure out. But what the hell has technology got to do with an archaic religion with no determinable intelligence of any kind behind it. Your dubious beliefs (or religion) has nothing to offer in terms of morality; your morality doesn't include having a genuinely good reason to believe something in the first place. Illiterate and uneducated primitive men wrote the bible babble and as man became educated they knew it was drivel and that's why it takes extreme coercion to keep that information from (what politicians call folks) or the uneducated population. You need to come up with some proof that what you believe is based in fact instead of trying to coerce someone with threats, and I already know that there's not one shred of evidence or any reason to believe that it's anything but fiction.

GEORGE SAID: CAN YOU IMAGINE BAD PEOPLE TO HAVE ALL TECHNOLOGY AND POWER THEY WANT? I SOMETIMES THINK THAT GOD ALLOWED US TO KNOW MORE THAN WE ARE ABLE TO CARRY."

LINDA SAID: Society Without God - By Sociologist Phil Zuckerman Winner of the 2008 Foreword Magazine Book of the Year Award, Religion Category -Sociologist Phil Zuckerman spent a year in Scandinavia: He found that most residents of Denmark and Sweden don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer. BOOKS: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe Greg Epstein The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture Darrel W. Ray Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion by Phil Zuckerman ARTICLES: Current Affairs: Denmark may be ranked number one in the happiness category, but when it comes to religion, Danes find themselves nearly in last place. Thursday, December 1st, 2011 Year after year, Danes continues to draw international attention as "the happiest people in the world." Interestingly enough, they are also one of the least religious, with only a small portion of the population attending church on a regular basis and atheism running strong. literacy in some of the least religious was at 99% and literacy in some of the most religious were around 40.9%.

Most atheists know that it's because of science that people began to understand that everything evolved through natural processes and there is no reason to keep bowing and scraping to an imaginary sugar daddy in the sky. We know the universe evolved. It wasn't created by a Creator. Believers don't have to explain anything, they have never had a feasible theory about the origin of the universe or life in the universe (they don't have to have one since they don't try to understand anything) on the other hand atheists don't think "god did it" is a theory or an explanation. The bible reveals nothing but an exclusivity ideology bent on expansion in the name of God for social and political reasons. And they never have to explain any of the absurdities involved in the making of their religions?

LINDA SAID: Explain, if there's a better science, why it's not in the bible instead of a lot of insane gibberish, because what's in the bible is not going to convince anyone very smart that there is a superior being who made everything instantly by saying "let there be" unless it can be explained. You need to answer the questions about an unimaginable science and explain it- and so does god. Notice these were answers to your remarks or arguments - and that's what I have written. Your one line replies are not answers to my rebuttals. It's either because you are too dumb or too lazy to do the work. If you are going to claim people are wrong then you need to be able to tell them exactly why - and then give the correct answers.

LINDA SAID: "Explain, if there's a better science, why it's not in the bible instead of a lot of insane gibberish..."

GEORGE SAID: I told you, God has His own science but the Bible is not a scientific book. What is in the Bible convinced so many wonderful people in this world. Blessed be God for His words in the Bible. Without them I would have perished in alcohol, adultury and other spiritual tombs.

Read a little about Faraday's life (the electricity's father).

Physicist Ernest Rutherford stated; "When we consider the magnitude and extent of his discoveries and their influence on the progress of science and of industry, there is no honour too great to pay to the memory of Faraday, one of the greatest scientific discoverers of all time".

Faraday married Sarah Barnard (1800-1879) on 12 June 1821.[15] They met through their families at the Sandemanian church, and he confessed his faith to the Sandemanian congregation the month after they were married. They had no children.[9]

Faraday was a devout Christian; his Sandemanian denomination was an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Well after his marriage, he served as deacon and for two terms as an elder in the meeting house of his youth. His church was located at Paul's Alley in the Barbican. This meeting house was relocated in 1862 to Barnsbury Grove, Islington; this North London location was where Faraday served the final two years of his second term as elder prior to his resignation from that post. Biographers have noted that "a strong sense of the unity of God and nature pervaded Faraday's life and work."

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

GEORGE SAID: "I told you, God has His own science but the Bible is not a scientific book. What is in the Bible convinced so many wonderful people in this world. Blessed be God for His words in the Bible. Without them I would have perished in alcohol, adultury and other spiritual tombs."

LINDA SAID: Yes, you gave the pathetic excuse (god has his own science) for all the mistakes in the Bible concerning anything scientific. It's amazing that you know about a "God science" that nobody else knows about? Do you really think you can convince someone that there is a God science that you know about but nobody else does? And that there is no more evidence for the big bang theory or evolution than there is for creation? Creation is the "God science", but nothing supernatural or created exists, and everything that we know about the origin of life and the universe has been through scientific discovery. Since the Bible is completely erroneous about how the universe and life evolved; I guess you had to think up something, ah yes, another kind of science instead of calling it Creation, which is absolutely what the Bible teaches. I do think that what you are writing is a reflection of your own inferiority. These are concepts that are drummed into someone's weak mind. Truth doesn't need to play hide-in-seek or to be used to indoctrinate people with it; and anyone can find the truth for themselves by asking questions and demanding the truthful answers. These are "religious convictions" not science convictions. The religious convictions are about accepting something as truth without evidence or investigation.We know things exist because of various kinds of observations, experiments and thought. These are the factors in acquiring knowledge. A scientific theory is not based on a "belief" or something that could never be tested or falsified. If there is anything in the Bible that even approximates scientific knowledge no scientists has ever found it; or one thing valuable to science.

There was a very long period of time when expressing a belief in God was necessary to prevent being condemned for heresy, and the threat of official reprisal was possible, so, what went on in the 1800's is not evidence of anything. The word Dinosaur wasn't invented until the 1800s, and efforts to promote the empirical methods of Francis Bacon and John Locke of England as the only legitimate way to practice science was underway; the clergy knew science was a challenge to religious ideology, but the scientists eventually did get religion out of science. England's scientists were dominated by the Church of England for a very long time, so most everyone knows it means little that someone from the past was involved with religion.

LINDA SAID: " It's because we are evolving and acquiring knowledge that we have a better life. " This is just half of the truth; the rest is the fact that, He (GOD) allowed us to acquire more knowledge to have a better life; He made us available some of His science but we still are angry He did not tell us more; of course we are wrong;

Where's any evidence of another kind of science? The people who wrote the bible sure do need another kind of science since it appears they didn't get any of the answers right with (just plain old) science.

You're tap dancing around the fact that you can't prove anything you are saying and repeating the same trash without giving an actual rebuttal. ~ Sing'n doo wa ditty ditty dum ditty doo! ~

There is not much to prove that the TRUTH and LOVE and JUSTICE exist in our univers. And if you believe in these 3 values, you started to believe in God. And one day He might tell you more about His eternal life, potentially created for you as well. He might have surprises for you one day.

Nations that are the most religious have higher rates of violent crimes, STD, illiteracy and social ills than the least religious. In what is acclaimed to be a predominately Christian nation, in the USA, Chicago is the murder capitol of the world, and America is always at war.

You need to try and determine what is really true and then discuss that, instead of what you have been brainwashed to believe is true, if you can't do that stop wasting our time posting your dogma.

Generally we do not interract with God face to face. This is not possible because we would die if we see Him.

From: George (Posted Jan 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm) GEORGE SAID: Generally we do not interract with God face to face. This is not possible because we would die if we see Him.

LINDA SAID: No! Well, I know where that idea came from, and it's not science it's the Old Testament that contradicts itself on that very issue.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."

Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

Exodus 33:11 "Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face"

Genesis 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

You are lacking evidence. You haven't told us how you came to any of those conclusions. Many people are lead to believe that if it's written in the Bible it's the truth without questioning it. It's called conditioning. You lack the actual information (education) that is necessary to make any determination.

LINDA SAID: No! Well, I know where that idea came from, and it's not science it's the Old Testament that contradicts itself on that very issue.

GEORGE REPLY: There is no contradiction. Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 reffers to the fact that noone can see God in His all power; he might be much powerful than our sun and you would be melted in a second; The rest of the verses reffer to the fact that if God takes a protection for Himself, (for example in the form of an angel or a human being) than we can talk to Him face to face. Bible does not give all details at once.

Scholars know that a single individual did not write the first five books of the Bible. The first five books are a compilation of conflicting diverse writing composed over many centuries. Moses (One person) was not the author of the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (the law) or the Pentateuch. In which, by the way, Moses recounts his own funeral. There was no Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible.

Archeologists and Scholars know that many different people wrote them over many centuries. Egyptian proverbs of Amenemope found their way into the Biblical Book of Proverbs almost verbatim. And the Canaanite origins of chapters VIII-IX of the Book of Proverbs, on the theme of Wisdom are the same themes in the Phoenician literature unearthed at Ugarit. The Sumero-Akkadian story of the creation of the World found its way to Palestine long before the Israelites' coming there, and they learned the stories from the Canaanites on whom they imposed themselves.

Christianity is stolen Kemetic / Egyptian religious philosophy and spirituality, including its rituals and beliefs, remade in an Aryan image. Author and scholar Gerald Massey, once a Christian Priest, began investigating the origins Christianity found the trail leading to the civilization of Kemet / Egypt. As a consequence Massey became a student and investigator of Ancient Kemet / Egypt, and subsequently revealed his findings in four major publications - Books of the Beginnings, The Natural Genesis, Ancient Egypt the Light of the World and The Lectures. Gerald Massey over the course of twenty or so years presented facts proving Christianity was fabricated upon what was stolen from Kemet / Egypt; and that Christianity was in no respect original or from any god. Ancient Egypt the Light of the World is the comparative list Massey compiled demonstrating that Christianity is a plagiarized fabrication from its Kemetic / Egyptian origins. The list is eight pages in length. If you haven't read these publications of Gerald Massey to learn the truth about Kemet / Egypt and its impact on the fabrication of Christianity for yourself then you can't deny any of it.

The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology. In the Exodus story Pharaoh is never given a name, and there is no record in Egyptian history as ever having had Hebrew slaves, despite the large amount of information we have about this period in Egyptian history that this exodus supposedly happened in.

The OT story claims Moses was given the law on Mt. Sinai and was ordered by God to bring the law down to his people. That is not true, because it can be demonstrated to be false. It is also a fact that the Ten Commandments were not given to Moses on Mt. Sinai they came from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This can easily be found to be true with a little research. In the bible story Aaron is portrayed as casting a molten calf of gold from jewelry, earrings being given by the recently freed from Egypt Hebrew slaves (Ex 32:2-3). In the bible story they declare that the Golden Calf led them up out of Egypt to the Holy Mount. The two stories are morphed together.

Exodus 12:40-41 says that the Hebrews spent 430 years in Egypt. And according to Genesis, Moses' grandfather, Kohath, was alive at the time of the migration to Egypt and lived 133 years, while Moses' father, Amran, lived 137 years. So, Moses must have been born sometime between 15 years and 270 years after the arrival in Egypt. Even assuming the patriarchs really lived to improbably great ages, Moses died, aged 120 years, at least 40 years before the Exodus.

Moses never saw God face to face or anyone else because the story is a fable."Instead of splitting the carcass of a sea-monster to create the world, as Marduk did, Yahweh divided the Sea of Reeds to let his people escape from Pharaoh and the pursuing army. Instead of slaying the demonic hordes, like Marduk, Yahweh drowned the Egyptians." - K. Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem, p31.

Even Biblical scholars know that a single individual did not write the first five books of the Bible. The first five books are a compilation of conflicting diverse writing composed over many centuries. Moses (One person) was not the author of the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (the law) or the Pentateuch. In which, by the way, Moses recounts his own funeral.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

ACA members! It's time to renew your ACA membership. You can do so online if you log in and then click here or check your e-mail for alternate instructions. Thanks for supporting the ACA.

The after-the-show meetup after the Atheist Experience TV Show has moved to El Arroyo, 1624 W 5th St.