There is an interesting post on The Intersection called Civility and the New Atheists, by Chris Mooney. In the post, Chris reviews Barbara Forrest’s statements that in engaging int he cross-world-view debate (scientists vs. creationists, atheists, vs religion, etc.) one should maintian etiquette, respect and understand diversity, and practice humility.

Atheist and pro-science writer Mooney notes in speaking of a talk by Forrest:

Forrest therefore concluded her talk by saying that we need are “epistemological and civic humility”-providing the groundwork for “civic friendship.” To which I can only say: Amen.

This is, of course, going to make certain commenters including Jason Rosenhouse cringe (see: Coyne is Right, Mooney is Wrong). It makes me cringe too, in a way .. the Amen part (OMG, Chris, a little OTT????). But I actually do agree that the conversation should always be done in the context of these three virtues. But at the same time, I believe it is possible to practice Etiquette while kicking someone’s balls up into their throat if necessary. Diversity is to be respected, but the far right needs at this point to be simply cut out of the conversation.

And Humility is good. As long as you understand that it is, like, my tenth or eleventh greatest quality.

But seriously, I agree completely with what Chris is trying to say here. At the same time, I do not want to see any compromise whatsoever in the science and the law. The trick is, how to do that. Without occasionally kicking someone’s balls up into their throat, diversely, and with humility.

Meanwhile, I eagerly await the chance to read Crhis and Sheril’s new book on a related topic (scientific illiteracy) … maybe it’s in the mailbox now…

Comments

  1. #1 James
    June 4, 2009

    It seems difficult to do at times, when the person you are at all criticizing finds your being an atheist to be, in itself, rude, impertinent, disrespectful and not-very-humble-at-all. That said, I do my best to point out that I can attack a person’s position ruthlessly without it being conflated with the person him or herself. Not everyone will hear it, of course. And it is true that sometimes a person won’t hear it because some atheist somewhere was OTT and now all atheists are tarred with it. But that just tells you where you stand, no? If someone is going to jump to conclusions, there’s only so much you can do to help him or her see that–before you just have to give up and set about “kicking someone’s balls up into their throat”. And I’m with you on that score. Sometimes you just have to, or else people will walk all over you with their willingness to do so. I am not willing to be, metaphorically speaking, a martyr for civil pacifism.

  2. #2 JThompson
    June 4, 2009

    At this point I’m not sure it is possible to be civil, since neither side seems to agree on what being civil actually is.
    To an awful lot of people, “Being uncivil” means “not agreeing with me”.
    Typically within seconds of “I’m an atheist and I disagree with you because…” you’re going to be accused of being uncivil. It doesn’t matter what you actually say.

    As for the three points brought up:
    1:Ettiquite: Religion is a private matter.
    Really? Then why can I not go an hour without having it foisted on me? Then being accused of being immoral baby murdering dog rapist when I disagree. Private my ass.

    Diversity: Yes, liberal religious people should be attacked. They’re enablers. They enable the fucked up ones that kill abortion doctors and pray over dying children. Especially when they claim things like “Prayer works!”.

    Humility: This is pure bullshit. “We can’t prove a negative.” is nonsense. You can’t prove they’re aren’t unicorns, but we don’t respect the people that believe in them.

    What the article boils down to is “Give religion a pass. Of course it’s nonsense, but we have to be nice, no matter what they do.”
    Religious people aren’t special. We should give them as much respect as we get. Given the polls that consistently say we’re the most hated minority, I’d say that would be absolutely none.

  3. #3 JThompson
    June 4, 2009

    Sorry for the double post, but that should’ve read “there aren’t unicorns,”. Not being able to edit that was driving me crazy.

  4. #4 DuWayne
    June 4, 2009

    I don’t disagree, especially being such a remarkably humble person myself – the sort of humble most men only dream of.

    But there is a point at which humility becomes another word for punching bag. And there are also factors that make it really difficult to be civil. I am not very good at remaining civil, for example, with people who want to tell me that if only I read this, listened to that or prayed some more, I would “find my way” again. In fact, I tend to get really fucking nasty with people who push that shit on me, given the desperation with which I fought to reconcile my Faith with reality. I’ve been increasingly steeped in reality, since I was about ten or eleven – I finally let go of the last vestiges of my Faith about six months ago, I was thirty-two, almost thirty-three.

    I fought the good fight, as it were and it wasn’t for lack of reading this, listening to that and praying – a lot of praying. Nor was it for lack of remarkable feats of cognitive dissonance, logical fallacy and incredible mental gymnastics.

    So I sometimes get really fucking angry with people who want to debate this with me. Actually, pretty much every time. I don’t go seeking it and I don’t push my lack of Faith on others – though the latter is a matter of degree and approach. I am not afraid and indeed welcome the opportunity to discuss how I got here, with people who are in much the same place I was. But I don’t care how polite, how moderate, how what the fuck ever they happen to be, I have earned the right to be free of this fucking “if only” bullshit. I have better than twenty years of earning it. And I am not the least interested in being polite about it any more. I am not going to jump down someone’s throat and rip out their small intestine, the first time they make a “if only” comment to me – but if they insist after I politely respond the first time all bets are off.

    In all honesty, I generally avoid discussions of Faith and science or Faith and lack of Faith, because at this point the wounds are way too fresh and I have a very short fuse about it (and I think everyone is aware of how much I hate incivility:). I am interested and willing to discuss it in a very narrow context and that only because I want to help others who are where I have been for most of the last twenty some years, find comfort with the idea of and hopefully eventually with being, where I am now.

  5. #5 NewEnglandBob
    June 4, 2009

    Mooney is saying to leave the accomadationists alone. There are those who say evolution is true but science and religion are compatible. Mooney says leave these people alone.

    Mooney is way off base in his arguments. Read the posts of his blog on discover magazine web site and Jerry Coyne’s web site and you will see that most people disagree with Mooney and put forth strong arguments against Monney’s position.

  6. #6 Brandon
    June 4, 2009

    Look, whether Coyne or Mooney are right or wrong is a matter of principle, and we’re all free to disagree. But the hard truth is that Mooney, unlike Coyne, is going to see real, tangible results. The “new atheists” are more than welcome to scream their heads off, but their words will fall on deaf ears, regardless of their merit.

    The far right wing will never be won over, and Greg is right that they should just be ignored. It’s the middle that’s the real issue: the “religion and science are compatible” folks and the “evolution is weird and I have my doubts” people. And every day I am absolutely baffled that a movement arose from the philosophy that belittling perfectly good people is going to get them to like you. Rather, it seems like many people on the Internet (most of them, actually, regardless of religion or lack thereof) want to release their anger on people whom they feel have screwed up the world, and they try to morally justify their outrage so they don’t feel like they’re wasting their time.

  7. #7 Mal Adapted
    June 4, 2009

    I’m with Brandon. Folk wisdom has it right (for once): “You’ll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

  8. #8 Badger3k
    June 4, 2009

    Mooney will see real, tangible results?

    Well, if it’s worked so well for so long, why change now?

  9. #9 Rystefn
    June 4, 2009

    Actually, Mal, you’ll attract more flies with vinegar. Try it and see.

  10. #10 Dan J
    June 4, 2009

    It’s probably not a bad idea to use one of their own professed tactics against them: “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.”

    Brandon said:

    And every day I am absolutely baffled that a movement arose from the philosophy that belittling perfectly good people is going to get them to like you.

    Belittling the people is definitely not a good idea. The people aren’t the problem; their bronze-age beliefs are the problem. Unfortunately, many of the religious people are unable to separate themselves from their religion, thus any attack on their beliefs is seen by them as a very personal attack.

    So what should we do? I advocate speaking out (in a very civil manner) every single time a patently religious notion is passed off as fact, or is foisted upon those who have no desire for it, or is posited as the basis for legislation, etc. Don’t ever give up ground. Keep notifying the religious when they overstep their bounds. Keep bringing up the facts.

  11. #11 Brandon
    June 5, 2009

    Dan J, I agree with you completely. Pointing out when people are overstepping their bounds in the public square is perfectly reasonable. I was more referring to when PZ Myers personally blamed every single religious person on the planet for Daniel Hauser’s predicament. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/modern_day_isaacs.php

    It is impossible to claim that when PZ wrote this article, he was thinking to himself, “I sure am contributing to solving world problems!”

  12. #12 Paul Murray
    June 5, 2009

    Simply by saying “I don’t belive in God”, you are attacking belivers. Your neutral statment of fact nessesarily implies that they are wrong about one of the most important things in their life. It’s not like saying “I don’t like ice-cream”. Merely being an atheist is enough to raise hackles.

    And as to epitemological humility, we have a pot/kettle situation here.

  13. #13 Quiet_Desperation
    June 5, 2009

    I’ve been atheist basically my whole life, and never had a problem being civil. What’s worse is that if you suggest banging people over the head with pipes is not a way to win converts (heh heh), you get called a “concern troll” or other mindlessly dismissive labels by the gallery. I get more guff from fellow atheists than religious people *because* I try to give civility a chance.

    I’ve personally turned twenty people away from either Sylvia Browne and/or John Edward by a calm and friendly approach. The toughest case was one who had seen a “Bullshit!” episode on a similar topic. Thanks, Penn! You’re really *not* helping us folks out in the trenches here.

    I’d do more but I’ve run out of people within my personal monkeysphere that believe in woo like that. To paraphrase the little psychic woman in Poltergeist, “This monkeysphere is clean.” :-)

    I’m sorry, it’s late and I’ve been suffering as yet unexplained insomnia.

  14. #14 Bickle
    June 5, 2009

    The problem is that anything other than kicking someone’s balls up their throat in the rudest most direct manner will not have any effect on the audience that needs to hear it most. Be too subtle or intellectual and they’ll have no idea they’re being made fun of or that they’re losing. Nothing short of beating them into the ground, burning the body then burning the ashes, then launching those ashes into the sun will penetrate.

    Remember that something around 60% of conservatives think Stephen Colbert is on their side, he’s just funny.

  15. #15 Brandon
    June 5, 2009

    Bickle, that’s pretty much the opposite of what’s true. Look up any successful progressive movement in US history. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, Martin Luther King, gay marriage in six states. They all have two things in common:
    1. They got in people’s faces. They did not sit in the corner and politely ask, “Can we have equal rights now?”
    2. They worked to gain allies. They showed people that they were nothing to be afraid of. They emphasized the values they shared in common. They were civil to all, except the truly bad people who didn’t deserve it.
    Martin Luther King did not blame the entire white Southern population when a black man was lynched. Susan B. Anthony did not condemn all men whenever a woman was raped. “Kicking someone’s balls up into their mouths” was a popular strategy among Mesopotamian warlords and fascist dictators. It’s popular because it’s easy. True diplomacy takes time and patience, and when you want change right now it can be very hard. Being diplomatic does not mean being weak. It means applying your strength efficiently, directing your power to where it needs to go. It’s the difference between a street thug who beats his underlings into submission and a charismatic leader who inspires confidence and solidarity in his followers.

  16. #16 Kevin
    June 5, 2009

    A Christian kills an abortion doctor and other christians line up to defend him. muslims wage jihad against infidels and happily post throat slitting videos online. Rabbi Manis Friedman was recently spotlighted by PZ Myers for stating “The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

    Yet somehow it is the atheists that are not civil enough???

  17. #17 Matt Penfold
    June 5, 2009

    Look, whether Coyne or Mooney are right or wrong is a matter of principle, and we’re all free to disagree. But the hard truth is that Mooney, unlike Coyne, is going to see real, tangible results.

    Why should it work now, when for the last 20-30 years it has not worked ? Care to tell us if there has been any significant change in the number of Americans rejecting evolution on the grounds it conflicts with their religious beliefs ? The data I have seen suggest nothing has changed. “New” atheism has been only around for about five years, so cannot be held responsible for the lack success before that. It is the moderate religious, and their atheist supporters who are to blame. Their tactics failed.

    Has it not occurred to you the reason the likes of Dawkins have become so vocal is because of the conspicuous lack of success that the “accomodationists” have had ?

  18. #18 strech
    June 5, 2009

    Yes, liberal religious people should be attacked. They’re enablers. They enable the fucked up ones that kill abortion doctors and pray over dying children.

    I’ve never understood this argument. Since when do people need the cover of religious liberals to be idiots? People do fucked up things for all kinds of reasons, with or without religion. How does this “enabling” work?

  19. #19 Tex
    June 5, 2009

    I’m with Brandon. Folk wisdom has it right (for once): “You’ll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

    Actually, Mal, you’ll attract more flies with vinegar. Try it and see.

    If attracting flies is really what you want to do, shit works way better than honey or vinegar.

  20. #20 Hypatia's Daughter
    June 5, 2009

    There are two goals: promoting science; and promoting atheism. They may be complementary but they are different. HOW you behave depends on your goal and your audience.

    I am more interested in protecting the principles of science than pitching atheism – I don’t care what someone’s religious beliefs are if they are not attacking science, the scientific method and science education. Civilly accomodating people’s religious beliefs advances this goal.

    Others (such as Hitchens) are primarily interested in promoting atheism and eliminating the power and privilege of religion. Defending science is a vital but secondary concern. No matter what he says or how he says it, he will be considered “uncivil” for trying to undermine religion.

    One must also consider the audience. Hitchens will never convert a believer, but that is not his goal. He is talking to atheists and for them, is the general rallying the troops to gird their loins before battle.

    Dawkins went from promoting science to promoting atheism, probably because his religious beliefs became an issue (“are evolutionists all atheists?”)and he was pushed into explaining and defending his beliefs. His audience is the general public. His goal – conversion, if possible; if not, then at least legal and social respect for atheists. Civility and rational discourse are the best way to achieve these goals.

    In any battle for social change you need both approaches. And whatever you do, it will make people angry. Nobody is happy giving up a privilege, no matter how nicely you ask them.

  21. #21 Matt Penfold
    June 5, 2009

    I’ve never understood this argument. Since when do people need the cover of religious liberals to be idiots? People do fucked up things for all kinds of reasons, with or without religion. How does this “enabling” work?

    It is quite simple. There are some who put religious beliefs in a different category than other beliefs, and claim they should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as those other beliefs. Greg and others do not see why this should be the case. If someone wants to claim stem cell research should not happen, then they need to bring along better arguments that merely the fact they think their god would not like it.

  22. #22 Azkyroth
    June 5, 2009

    Yes, fellow atheists, can we please stop arrogantly existing and contemptuously finishing the sentence that starts with “I don’t agree, and here’s why:”?

  23. #23 Peter McKellar
    June 5, 2009

    I find accomodationists that advocate some polite English tea party approach to wingnut loonies to be a ludicrous waste of time. The Boston Tea Party however sent a clear and direct message to the magisteria that things were going to change.

    The cornerstone of the whole strategy being followed by New Atheists is that advocated by Jefferson himself – that the only response to the ridiculous was ridicule. In other words, to engage in their madness is to give it some credence.

    When medical research is subverted and funds diverted to woo based, victim blaming “healthy lifestyle” advertising programs then we all suffer. Bogus rulings protect witchdoctors in one country, AIDS can be cured by herbal teas in another, their neighbours swear by murdering albinos while others kill young girls that villagers call witches.

    In the same area, you could watch a 13 year old rape victim being stoned to death for adultery. But the righteous gunning down of Tiller, despite being openly praised on twitter by psychopath enablers are overwhelmed by moderate apologists claiming the killer was not a real Scotsman.

    Like the drone of a gregorian chant or the mantra of those doomed to endless deja vu, the annual insertion of creation’s shim is attempted one more fucking time to try to throw the pyramid of science off level. And every year it fails. Do we have to put up with this crap for another 2,000 years just to be polite?

    Should we be tolerant to deluded parents that kill their children through negligence or abuse masquerading as a harmless “world-view” deserving equal time with antibiotics, stem cells, vaccines and the germ theory? Let’s all tolerate a world-view that clerical abuse of children is OK if confession is given, penance is made (or indulgences purchased) AND he can be moved to a parish in another state? Or should we force a teenager to carry to term a rapist’s child, insist on sati for all widows and respect an authority that claims condoms cause AIDS, not prevent it. To show tolerance to diversity maybe we could change building codes to accept the biblical value of pi as 3.

    Not only must New Atheists put up with this today, our meek and mild predecessors were slaughtered wholesale, imprisoned, tortured and burned at the stake for heresy. This portion of history must not be permitted to repeat, despite the desperate and intensifying efforts of the religists as they attempt to hold back the tide. No more “get out of jail free” cards, no government handouts or tax exemptions. Accountability for hate speech and crimes. Recognition that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse and must be stopped. These are not only reasonable, they are essential for the operation of a progressive society.

    If I upset someone because I demolish their arguments then call them a fucktard, all the better – it makes other potential fucktards think twice before they infect the blogsphere with their toxic memes.

    But our confronting, often insulting but rock solid arguments isolate outriders by flushing out the loonies (a gift to theists also) and forcing the centre of the “norm” further into sanity. The difference between religion driven change as in the past and this secular change driven by a highly moral and motivated core of New Atheists is that we educate. We attack ideas with logic and idiots with words of scorn but we do not advocate violence or inflict it on those that condemn us and persecute us at every turn.

    Under theocratic watch for the last two millennia the world has turned to crap environmentally, financially and socially. They fucked up, we even told them so all the way along – and paid for it with our lives. Now we are gonna keep yelling until they fucking listen and back off. Then we can try to repair the mess without their bleating to distract us. If they hit us we will not turn the other cheek – we will hit back, we will hit back hard. We won’t be used as scapegoats or be culled this time.

    Anyone that believes tolerance and politeness will work now when it has always failed previously hasn’t taken the few minutes required to critically look at the consequences of their naivety. Blasphemy laws and demanding respect for “world views” that don’t fit reality is a short road to The Inquisition Mark II.

    It is the politeness of good people and tolerance to the evil acts of others that enables bad people to go unchallenged and their crimes to continue.

  24. #24 strech
    June 5, 2009

    It is quite simple. There are some who put religious beliefs in a different category than other beliefs, and claim they should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as those other beliefs. Greg and others do not see why this should be the case. If someone wants to claim stem cell research should not happen, then they need to bring along better arguments that merely the fact they think their god would not like it.

    I don’t disagree with the idea that beliefs are subject to scrutiny. I just don’t see how the religious liberals affect this re: conservatives. They neither encourage the religious conservatives (who are going to do this anyway), nor do they provide them cover from attacks (the religious left is quite secular in a political sense). Nor do they generally oppose stem cell research, for that matter.

    I suppose you’re suggesting that the religious left demands special treatment for religion. However, apart from not being universally true (it’s not inherently illegitimate to disagree with an atheist, so not being one is not a demand for special treatment), the impulse to claim unimpeachable ideology that’s free from attack transcends religion (c.f. Communism and Nationalism, most obviously) and is actually somewhat tangential to it.

    Also, how does someone holding one view of (say) prayer, legitimize or equal someone holding an entirely different view of prayer? Such that you can blame them both when one allows their view of prayer to let a child die? There are more than 2 options here. And (as the “alternative” nonsense shows), you don’t need prayer or religion to end up endangering a child via factless devotion to some idea.

  25. #25 Lou FCD
    June 5, 2009

    Civility is over-rated.

    One can’t reason with the unreasonable. If reality doesn’t conform to a particular superstition, then it isn’t reality’s problem.

    Put me in the “kicking someone’s balls up their throat in the rudest most direct manner” camp. If it bothers you, please feel free to hit the “next blog” button.

  26. #26 Brandon
    June 5, 2009

    Lou, every tyrannical dictator in human history would love you.

  27. #27 JThompson
    June 5, 2009

    @stretch: Well, it’s pretty simple.
    When absolutely everone you encounter confirms your batshit crazy assertion that prayer works, you start to think “Hey, maybe prayer really does work!”
    Then you pray over a dying child instead of taking them to the hospital.
    After all, *everyone* knows prayer works, right?

    Brandon: I think what I just said is the point PZ was trying to make.
    When everyone you encounter reinforces your fucked up version of reality, you’re not going to leave it.

  28. #28 Dan J
    June 5, 2009

    I think some of the comments here are definitely on to something that may prove to be the best tactic.

    Most of us here are atheists, and most of us here wish to promote and defend science and the scientific method. Promoting atheism may be a secondary goal, but probably shouldn’t be the primary goal. But why?

    Questions: Were you an atheist first, or were you into science first? Did your interest or study in science lead to your atheism or reinforce it in any way?

    If, by way of promoting and defending the scientific method without overtly espousing atheism, we can get more of the general population interested in science, and educate them about science, would more people begin to question everything in terms of the scientific method? Would this lead to more people questioning their religious beliefs and how they apply to the world at large?

    Just a thought.

  29. #29 llewelly
    June 5, 2009

    Brandon | June 5, 2009 4:42 PM:

    Lou, every tyrannical dictator in human history would love you.

    It is hilarious to see Brandon advocating civility out of one side of his mouth and comparing people to tyrannical dictators with the other.

    Much like Nisbet, who compared PZ to racist Don Imus on odd days and argued for civility on even days.

  30. #30 llewelly
    June 5, 2009

    Brandon | June 5, 2009 3:51 AM:

    Martin Luther King did not blame the entire white Southern population when a black man was lynched.

    No, but he was quite willing to call them out when they were an obstacle:
    Martin Luther King, Jr., on white moderates:

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

    Much the same for Susan B. Anthony .

  31. #31 Lou FCD
    June 5, 2009

    Brandon said,

    Lou, every tyrannical dictator in human history would love you.

    Yes, because speaking my mind is exactly the same thing as tyrannical dictatorship.

    You’re a moron.

  32. #32 NewEnglandBob
    June 5, 2009

    More people are leaving religion in the US now than ever before. It is accelerating. Maybe this has to do with the Atheists tactics.

    Accommodationism has been proven to not work. It was called appeasement in the first half of the 20th century.

  33. #33 Brandon
    June 5, 2009

    You’re a moron.

    See, you don’t like it when I compare you to bad people just because you have something tangentially in common with them, right? Now how do you think that tactic works on other people?

  34. #34 Lou FCD
    June 6, 2009

    If you can’t see the difference, you’re either dumber than I thought, or more dishonest.

  35. #35 Brandon
    June 6, 2009

    Yeah, you genuinely believe that the gratuitous insult route gets the best results. You’re not just trying to morally justify what you already do at all.

  36. #36 george.w
    June 6, 2009

    Upthread in comment 20, Hypatia’s Daughter said that Hitchins is really talking to atheists and not to believers. I’m not sure that’s true; he may be talking to people in the middle with doubts. His OTT attacks give space for those doubts to expand. As long as people tiptoe around religion, it’s that much harder to really face the absurdity of the teapot, FSM, Virgin Mary, Unicorns, whatever.

    Enter the “New Atheists”, and the “Out Campaign” and the person who goes along with religion for social reasons but has nowhere to land if they didn’t, suddenly has rhetorical room to address their doubts. There are people on the other side, and they aren’t tiptoeing or being silent! It’s a welcome change.

    It almost boils down to just turning the word “atheist” over in your mouth to get the taste of it. Taste is contextual.

  37. #37 marie
    June 6, 2009

    Hi,

    We have just added your latest post “Are the “new atheists” not civil enough?” to our Directory of Science . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to your website.

    Warm Regards

    Scienz.info Team

    http://www.scienz.info

  38. #38 Lou FCD
    June 6, 2009

    Yeah, you genuinely believe that the gratuitous insult route gets the best results. You’re not just trying to morally justify what you already do at all.

    I was neither looking for results nor justifying a thing. What possessed you to think I was?

    I was simply responding to a very stupid statement from a troll by pointing and laughing.

  39. #39 Jerry Coyne
    June 6, 2009

    Mr. Laden, I wish you wouldn’t imply that all of us are guilty of incivility. I would claim that I am innocent of this charge. Of COURSE we all favor civility, but I for one don’t favor holding back when discussing ideas that are either injurious or illogical.

    Jerry Coyne

  40. #40 Jerry Coyne
    June 6, 2009

    Mr. Laden,

    I wish you wouldn’t imply that all of us atheists are uncivil. In fact few of us are, and I’d include myself in the civil ranks. NOBODY I know is in favor of uncivil discourse. I’m in favor of civility towards people, but not towards destructive or illogical ideas, which can be attacked with the full force of rationality.

    jac

  41. #41 slpage
    June 6, 2009

    I’m a bit schizo on this issue.

    On the one hand, it is always nice to be…. nice. But on the other hand, many of the folks with whom I discuss such topics (e.g., evolution) as opponants see ‘being nice’ as a weakness. THEY are aggressive and unapologetic for trying to force their beliefs on all, and see ‘accommodation’ and politeness as concession. These same folks, of course, see ‘doing unto them as they have done unto you’ as indicative of the weakness of your position, also. Can’t win with such folk. I once encountered a hardcore ‘presuppositionalist’ creationist on a discussion board who would declare that unless you agreed with him, you could lift up his kilt and kiss his one-eyed snake. But if you used the word ‘ass’, he would hoot and holler and complain to the moderators that you broke the rules and declare that using ‘profanity’ was offensive and such. So to this fellow, and I suspect to many others, using curse words is a far greater offense than saying the exact same thing – or worse – but not using profanity. ‘Kiss my glutes’ is perfectly fine, ‘kiss my ass’ is an offense to their Christian sensibilities and indicates that your atheist worldview makes you a bad person.

    I guess the way I see it, you have ot know your audience. Little old ladies may be swayed with kindness, but ‘macho’ bible thumps might respond better to tough talk – especially when they cannot run to a discussion board ‘moderator’ and tell on you.

  42. #42 Dick Mesland
    June 6, 2009

    Although, or may be because, I am old I am new to this kind of blog discussions. The vehemence of the exchange strikes me. I suppose that it might be rooted in the much bigger influence religion has in the U.S than it has in the western part of Europe. I was raised in a completely non-religious, atheïstic family. Being from a lower social level and from a big family I had to walk unusual paths to become a scientist. Only to discover, after many years of working with scientists from rather different disciplines, all engaged in space-related research, that current scientific models are treated as truths in their daily lifes.
    As with religious beliefs of thruth, scientific beliefs of truth also have a tendency to obscure an open-minded view of observed realities in our world. I was happy to discover that many western philosophers, from the ancient past to present times, not only warned for the dangers of this shortsightedness, but also explained beautifully why the world observed, the very object of our scientific research, is nothing more than a matter-made reflection of a totally unknown metaphysical reality.
    Chances are high that you now stop reading immediately.
    Presentday science denies (or ignores) the existence of metaphysical reality. Yet, it is a purely logical, unescapable conclusion. One might say: “Okay, so what?” First of all, this not-knowable reality serves as input to our bodies, which produce the reality we observe. Secondly, our bodies are part of the unknown reality as well. We only know our bodies from their consciously projected seeing and feeling. It gives us time and space. Hence, all phenomena in our observed world are grounded in metaphysical activities, that we will never be able to know. They are the layer of “truth” below our physical law.
    From a scientific point of view all that one says about this layer is pure speculation. But to deny that there could be effects in the world observed, that may never be understood, is not a scientific attitude.
    Let me be clear, I reject belief-arguments as instruments to shape our society. With Quine I agree, that the best we have is our science-based world model, but, I quote: “..in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind.”

    Dick Mesland
    The Biological Misconception
    http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/TheBiologicalMisconception.html

  43. #43 Rohkna
    June 6, 2009

    In my somewhat limited experience, I have found that a quiet confidence is often far more intimidating than boisterous debate.

  44. #44 eddie
    June 6, 2009

    Didn’t mooney read ANY of that ‘Silence is the Enemy’ stuff? Or is he so compartmentalised he doesn’t see the obviour parallels?
    Athiests should be not seen and not heard?
    Mooney. stfu.

  45. #45 Jason Thibeault
    June 6, 2009

    Arguing with civility is something I at least try to do, regardless of the topic, though like everyone I have a temper and in some arguments, my fuse is shorter than others. I have only ever once “fought dirty” to my recollection, when an anti-LHC troll showed up at my blog and civilly challenged me to debate him, but rather than taking the bait I edited his comments to remove links to his blog (and gut his arguments in one major post) and told him to leave.

    When it comes to debating religion, I have a close friend who is the son of a minister, who is more than capable of defending his faith, and after we get a few drinks in us, the conversation gets heated. But we stay friends regardless, so either he’s thick-skinned enough that my incivility rolls off, or we’re good enough at compartmentalizing our arguments and our friendship.

    Now, when it comes to debating with a total stranger, I don’t even have the comfort level that I do with my friend, so I’m usually more civil. I’ll throw punches, of course, but I’ll pull them more than with my friend. Then again, my version of civility usually includes not being willing to compromise my own position, and (as in the example of a fundamentalist), my position is antithetical to theirs to the point where they see incivility where there isn’t any, as JThompson pointed out @2.

    My caveat to this is that they have to be civil in bringing the argument. If a creationist or God-follower tells me I’m evil, going to hell (which I don’t even believe exists), or that I’m brainwashed, the gloves are off from the get-go.

  46. #46 eddie
    June 6, 2009

    Thank you, Dan J @28 and llewelly for the MLK quote. I think everyone should read those. I’m tempted to copy and paraphrase the MLk quote onto the threads linked to at top.

  47. #47 solomon
    June 12, 2009

    Matt Penfold, (no 21 comment)
    Who gave you life?….answere me….
    If God did’nt give you life you’ll be a dead meat!
    Don’t make fun of God.

  48. #48 solomon
    June 12, 2009

    Matt Penfold, (no 21 comment)
    Who gave you life?….answere me….
    If God did’nt give you life you’ll be a dead meat!
    Don’t make fun of God.

  49. #49 solomon
    June 12, 2009

    Matt Penfold, (no 21 comment)
    Who gave you life?….answere me….
    If God did’nt give you life you’ll be a dead meat!
    Don’t make fun of God.
    (another version)

  50. #50 Jason Thibeault
    June 12, 2009

    If you’re not just a hit-and-run, “solomon”, which you probably are considering you did not realize ScienceBlogs’ ongoing timeout problems, I’ll be back to explain all of this in as laymans’ terms as possible. But here are two links giving you a good overview of how life began. Notice nowhere in this does it say “a magical sky man poofed everything into existence”.

    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html

    And to preempt any arguments from incredulity:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

  51. #51 solomon
    June 14, 2009

    Jason Thibeault,
    I don’t have to open the website you send me coz they all contains nonsense followed by fools.Put forth anything from science to philosophy if youre the man of truth.Don’t try to scare me with your so called “science stuffs”.Science is a chicken feed subject to God and what you know is only a minute or I can say a”dust” fraction of Gods knowledge.You have just lived maybe for a second compared to Gods timeless creations yet you all Atheists have the boastfull attitude to defy God.You and all the Athiests are just guessing,you all are even not confident with what you all believe.

  52. #52 solomon
    June 14, 2009

    Jason Thibeault,
    I don’t have to open the website you send me coz they all contains nonsense followed by fools.Put forth anything from science to philosophy if youre the man of truth.Don’t try to scare me with your so called “science stuffs”.Science is a chicken feed subject to God and what you know is only a minute or I can say a”dust” fraction of Gods knowledge.You have just lived maybe for a second compared to Gods timeless creations yet you all Atheists have the boastfull attitude to defy God.You and all the Athiests are just guessing,you all are even not confident with what you all believe.

  53. #53 solomon
    June 15, 2009

    Dear people,

    I’am bringing you all out from the narrow thinking scope of the Atheists who will bring you all to hell.I’am bringing you to a wider,greater perspective.Open your heart and you will feel the wondrous of God’s creations.The Atheists are a bunch of people wondering in the world of their own without guidance.They think they are in the right path.They are only swayed by their dreams fooled by the big liar the SATAN.Come back to God.You won’t regret.

  54. #54 Luna_the_cat
    June 15, 2009

    solomon: this is only scary if you believe in hell and God to begin with. There is no reason for someone outside your belief system to take you seriously. And your refusal to look at any information outside the Holy Babble doesn’t help us take *you* seriously either; you’ve just informed us that you are deliberately ignorant out of fear of your superstitions.

  55. #55 Jason Thibeault
    June 15, 2009

    The hilarious part about this is that you’re actually illustrating exactly why civility from the New Atheists is impossible unless the religious decide to start showing a little civility themselves. Don’t preach on our science blogs, and we won’t think on your religious forums.

    Telling someone that they will go to hell if they do not “repent”, “convert”, or “believe”, will only convert those people who don’t have any idea what they’d be giving up by choosing to believe — you’ll only get the people who haven’t had anything put into their brains to begin with. Children, people brought up on the pablum of television, etc. Most atheists did not spring forth with fully formed ideas; the majority of us came from a religious upbringing and deconverted ourselves after noticing that, the more we learned about the universe, the less religion made sense. My deconversion process started sometime around when I was 12. It proceeded apace through til at least when I was 20. During that time, I could “pass” when needed; if someone expected me to bow my head at the dining room table, if someone expected me to “thank God”, if someone expected me to “say my prayers”, I could mimick the motions having been brought up in that world.

    Even today, I could probably quote the bible and use its homilies to argue points against science. Arguably, I bet I know more about your religion than you do. The only problem is, I understand both sides of the argument now. One side has facts, built up on top of all of human knowledge, while the other side has really really old books from before we started effectively collecting this knowledge and building off it. When I opened my mind to the possibility that scientific knowledge — that thing that was responsible for medical advances, architectural advances, space exploration, computers, and food processing and safety — could possibly be built upon a foundation of knowledge instead of a deception perpetrated by Satan, I started learning wonders about this universe that your tiny, limited God could only hope to aspire toward.

    Is there a specific “science stuffs” that could ever open your eyes? Is there a specific piece of proof that would make you rethink your blind faith? If you say no, that nothing could ever turn your back from your religion, then does that not prove that you are the closed-minded one?

  56. #56 Dan J
    June 15, 2009

    What would make you change your faith, solomon? I am positive I already know the answer you would give: nothing. You believe that your bible is absolutely right about everything, and no one could ever convince you differently. The story is over as far as you’re concerned. You’re not even willing to look at a web site discussing the origins of life in scientific terms “coz they all contains nonsense followed by fools.”

    I’d say that’s fairly closed-minded. Those of us who prefer science to describe the reality of the universe, instead of allowing bronze-age mythology to dictate it to us, are the open-minded ones. We alter our definition of reality when new facts are presented that refute the currently held position. In other words, if something comes along that is shown to make more sense, and more closely follow the evidence, then it becomes the leading explanation for a particular phenomena.

    Of course, I really don’t expect you to be back to read any of this, most people like you who come here (poor communications skills, obvious proselytizing) don’t often return. That, and the fact that your mind is completely closed to any thoughts that your religion might mean absolutely nothing at all.

  57. #57 solomon
    June 15, 2009

    Luna_the_cat,
    Don’t be scared.That is only a Surprise introduction for the Atheists & other believers who have been day dreaming with their circles of allies intoxicated with their false beliefs.Can’t you see suddenly I receive a lot of response.That was a good sign.
    Actually my intention is not to scare you all but to wake you up from your hallucination.You will find me very sensible later.
    There is alot of areas to be discussed,weight and wonder as time lapse.I will coach everybody to the true path so everyone could be saved from following Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins to hell.
    [you've just informed us that you are deliberately ignorant out of fear of your superstitions]
    Aw.. that is only your wild perception,leave it alone..
    I can discuss anything including your Bible if that what you prefer.I can explain which part is true & which part is manipulated by the Bible scholars until it will put some sense to you which is false & which is true.

  58. #58 Jason Thibeault
    June 15, 2009

    Out to convert the heathens today are we? Hope you’re wearing some Soul Protection Factor (SPF) 50 heresy-screen today.

    Answer my and Dan’s question. What would it take to convince you that you’re wrong and that the Bible is wrong?

    Once you’ve done that, bring me your best “guidance.” And remember, this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me.

  59. #59 solomon
    June 16, 2009

    Jason Thibeault,
    You are speaking as if youre a blind man.No.no.. no.theres nothing wrong with your eyes…its your heart, which is blind.Your eyes can’t deny you and you cannot deny it,you really did see all the wondrous creations around you & yet your heart choose to defy.
    Aww…that part regarding civility is just another retoric word to divert from the main argument.The main argument is youre touting or recruiting the people from the right or true path by shutting up from the real evidence or substance or proofs all around you.
    Why do you oppose on my comments on ‘your’ science blog(it’s not your blog anyway).Are you afraid I will pose a treat to your touting.Are you chicken out before a challenge.
    Not going to hell is not only about telling people to repent,convert or believe, that is only your narrow view to sabotage the spread of religous views.It’s to open the eyes,the heart of viewers to search for truth.Truth does not defy logic or science,it goes along with it and truth does not contradict.What I ment by [coz they all contains nonsense followed by fools.”]is the substance in science which is twisted or manipulated as if to fit the Athiests thinking,but not refering science a nonsense as a whole.Its the Atheists use of science only in general terms,to scare what they think some ordinary religous fundie.Why don’t they put forth the main argument or point or substance themselves,what they thought science contain & start a debate on it if they’re the man of truth.My quote on[coz they all contains nonsense followed by fools.”]is just a figurative speech to reveil the Athiests tactics to confuse others (they don’t have to pin point a few sites,theres millions of other science sites if one would want to refer to)into believing only science could give all the answers to all the wondrous creations[Dan J take note of this].
    As I’ve said earlier,my intro to this blog acts as a surprise or eyeopener but you took it as a point to scare underdog viewers.But nomatter how harsh or soft my views are expressed it will always put some sense to viewers because all that is conveyed is true compared to what form of expression you are trying to tout the viewers it will always leave a vacuum or a big question mark to their hearts.
    [Even today, I could probably quote the bible and use its homilies to argue points against science. Arguably, I bet I know more about your religion than you do.]
    Thats what I’ve said why don’t you put forth anything from science to mystic or philosophy & try to challenge with religion.Do you think true religion is only rituals & blindly following without thinking or evaluating?True religion or beliefs is much higher than that.Its about wondering,with our hearts,how could these creations around us came about existing.Yeah…the Atheists will label it as creationism or some form of dogma.Dogma or not does it make you start thinking or wondering there must be a creator to every creation, like the table in front of you.You can’t deny that there is a creator upon the table’s creation can you?Than again wonder how could these wondrous creations like the insects with its intricate minute muscles, and the germs with its complex cells and its alive.Who could have done that?Do you espect nature to create those intelligent design being & suddenly it can walk or fly around?Where did they get their lives.How can one shut their eyes & minds to the wonders of these creations by implying nobody did that.Again I can say it’s the Atheists hearts that’s playing a trick on them.
    You want proofs or science stuffs to regain your faith.Even if God made a well done chicken fall from the sky you will then say it’s just a hallucination.Thats just shows how ungratefull or stone hearted bunch the Atheists are.

  60. #60 Dan J
    June 16, 2009

    No, solomon, just because something exists does not mean that “someone” created it. There’s a rock in my driveway. Who is its creator? Your “God”? We don’t think with our hearts, we think with our minds. The heart is a muscular organ that pumps blood through the circulatory system. Desig, design, design. Insects were not designed. They evolved. Your god is a product of your imagination, used by people like you as a catch-all for anything they cannot otherwise readily explain. If you don’t understand it, then god did it.

    To be honest, Solomon, we’re getting rather tired of the same old arguments all the time. God does not exist. Heaven does not exist. Hell does not exist. Religion is useful only to those at the top who use it to wield power over gullible fools such as yourself.

  61. #61 solomon
    June 16, 2009

    As for you Dan J,
    You said
    [You believe that your bible is absolutely right about everything, and no one could ever convince you differently.]
    What do you mean by “my Bible”?I’am not refering to the Bible,I’am refering to the Qoran.If you mean the Qoran, than youre right,the Qoran is absolutely right about everything & there is no other absolute truth other than the Qoran.And even you can convince me if & only if you have the truth in hand.
    No the story is not over yet,its just the beginning.
    …I remember a song…When they begin….the beguine…by Johhny Mathis.I like that song.Ok back to serious matters…
    Ah…regarding the website I’ve already explain it in my no.
    59 comments to Jason Thibeault.
    Ah….ha…you? You said you & your lots who prefer science to describe the reality of the universe, instead of allowing bronze-age mythology to dictate it to you & your lots, are the open-minded ones.Let me put it this way.Youre approach is like somebody in the wilderness on some rainy night in total darkness.And lightning strikes now & then.When the lightning strikes, for a moment you can see the path where you are going.When there is no lightning you stops & can’t do anything.And when the lightning strikes again youre hurriedly search for your path again.Is that the same with somebody who is following a path in broad daylight?That applies in your reality life.When you find something in science that appeared like you have the answer to defy God or its existence, you will try to convince others & yourself.Then suddenly somebody else find the answer in science that oppose your findings,suddenly you are left with despair.Then again you will try to find other answers & again someone can find an idea or proof to oppose it.Will that be the divine solution or is it the same with someone who is guided all the way, with logic & with proofs?
    Poor communications skills or what you term as obvious proselytizing is not a handicap for sponsoring truth.Poor wondering & realizing will shuts ones mind to the path of truth.

  62. #62 solomon
    June 16, 2009

    Be patient Jason Thibeault,
    I’am out of patience to answer Dan J no.60 last desperate attempt comments first.
    Then what does it mean the simple table in front of you have no creator??Jason Thibeault..! your friend Dan J must have gone out of his mind or senses(as a result of too much denial of reality).What a blantant & irresposible reply I’ve heard in all my life..Evolution!! Again Evolution. That bloody simple word suddenly became some intelligent being that can determine how many legs the insect should have,what colour or structure its suppose to be, and that is only one simple item.How about other creations?What a bullshit and silly nonsense you put forth.You and the Atheists just don’t have any point or real substence to put forth to deny.
    People and your lots no matter how logic or magic of proofs laid to you, you will always follow your stone hearts to defy it and for certain the fires of hell is a just for you.(I’ll still pray that no one will get there)

  63. #63 Jason Thibeault
    June 16, 2009

    You argue for a god of the gaps, solomon. I could have the patience of Job (heh), but still never explain exactly how wondrous all of science in its entirety is.

    Let’s define a few things first. Science is an attempt to describe and explain how reality works the way it does. Reality actually does follow a bunch of rules and laws and stuff, and we’ve figured out quite a bit of it. We’ve figured out the weak and strong forces that make the universe run, we’ve figured out chemical and nuclear reactions that change atoms from one state to another, we’ve figured out some stuff about the shape and nature of the universe that nobody had ever anticipated (e.g. that the universe doesn’t technically have a center, because the “big bang” isn’t an explosion in space, it’s an expansion of space itself — it makes as much sense to say center of the universe as it does to say “up” and “down” in a flat 2-D universe).

    There’s a lot, a LOT, that science doesn’t understand. However, every time we discover new facts, the “common wisdom” is challenged and any “knowledge” that doesn’t fit with the new facts is thrown out and new explanations, or “theories”, are built to fit the facts in hopes that having those theories will make testable predictions that are proven correct. When you have a theory that explains some things well but the experiments that come from the theory are proven false, then the theory does not stand.

    As with the theory of evolution, how the original theory had no idea how traits were inherited, and predicted that there was some mechanism, THEN we discovered the entire field of genetics and every single fact we’ve found about genetics has supported the theory of evolution, after 150 years the theory is standing strong in the face of all sorts of potential to falsify the whole theory. It predicted that the fossil record (which in Darwin’s time was pretty damn sparse because we’d barely started digging for stuff) would show all sorts of animals that once existed that appear to be descended from one another, and that appear to be predecessors of existing species today in some way, shape or form. It has found transitional fossils like crazy, in every lineage you can imagine.

    Now, because of this fundamental difference between science (the study of reality and the improvement and self-correcting nature of its body of knowledge) and religion (the adherence to some stuff that some people made up a long time ago and the inherent schisms when people, like you, decide you have figured out these religions better than the original proponents and have nothing to base your beliefs on but your own logic), one is founded in reality and the other is pure fantasy.

    Regardless of how “civil” you’re being about it, one of us is saying “let’s all look at reality and watch how it works, and as we gain info, we’ll reverse-engineer what all the rules are by which this universe plays” and the other one is saying “I already know how it all works because it’s already written down that somebody created everything so obviously that’s what our starting point should be”.

    One is starting from no assumptions, the other is starting from one assumption.

    Drop your assumption and try looking at those links. And I’m willing to provide tons more information if ever you’re willing to hear what the evidence is. I know, you have to insulate yourself from this evidence because if you were to put your faith on one side of the balance, and ALL the evidence on the other, you’d come to the same conclusion that both me and Dan (both being apostates) came to. And you know, even just gaining a tiny bit of knowledge about science was enough to make me question the Bible I was told I had to believe, to the point where I actually went and read it. And that pretty much finished the deconversion process.

    Don’t be afraid of the evidence. It’s not “chickenshit” or “dust in the eye of God” or whatever else. Even if you absolutely have to postulate that God started things off, there’s so much proof out there that if God is responsible, he only kicked things off and everything else has just been one long chain reaction of cause and effect since the initial spark. And since most of us atheists are secure in the fact that God probably doesn’t exist, but have to leave that last hair of possibility open that something came along and started the big bang, we do leave the possibility open that God is the initial trigger. If your God is a meddlesome, poofs-things-into-creation God, then you believe in a tiny, insignificant God, when you could ascribe so much more to him — like how the entire universe seems to have worked so far as one long chain reaction.

  64. #64 solomon
    June 16, 2009

    I don’t have to go through your comments Jason,
    Do you or your great great grand father witness how the Universe came about?The theory of evolution or the big bang is just a lame & weak theory.It could’nt surpass the wondering of the hearts of the intricate beings around us.Look at what you eat.The meats and the fruits.How most of it were delicious?An explosion can cause most of them to taste like charcoal.Don’t you wonder at that point?Wondering alone can put all your theories which you yourself don’t understand down the drain.Why don’t you answer my previous simple question.Who gave us life.Why can’t you answer that?Why can’t the bodies at the morge suddenly rise up and run around naked if they want to?And theres a lot more question that the Atheists could’nt answer.

  65. #65 solomon
    June 16, 2009

    I don’t have to go through your comments Jason,
    Do you or your great great grand father witness how the Universe came about?They are only guessing right.The theory of evolution or the big bang is just a lame & weak theory and can easily be challenge.It could’nt surpass the wondering of the hearts of the intricate beings around us.Look at what you eat.The meats and the fruits.How most of it were delicious?An explosion can cause most of them to taste like charcoal.Don’t you wonder at that point?Wondering alone can put all your theories which you yourself don’t understand down the drain.Why don’t you answer my previous simple question.Who gave us life.Why can’t you answer that?Why can’t the bodies at the morgue suddenly rise up and run around naked if they wanted to?And theres a lot more question that the Atheists could’nt answer.

  66. #66 Dan J
    June 16, 2009

    Solomon, your grasp of basic scientific concepts is truly staggering.

    “Who gave us life?Why can’t you answer that?”

    My parents gave me life. I’m guessing your parents also gave you life. That’s generally the way human biology works.

    If you’re instead speaking about life in general on this planet, then the answer is a bit more complicated, and your question is a bit more meaningless. There is no “who” that caused life to arise on this planet. Your question would probably be better phrased as “How did life arise on our planet?”

    That question is one that is a source of a great many hypotheses, and a great deal of experimentation. Amino acids can form by way of natural chemical reactions that are not related to life. These amino acids are organized into proteins in living things here on earth. The construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. So how did the first nucleic acids arise? The iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms) are two leading hypotheses regarding the earliest stages of life on our planet.

    This field of study is a bit much to be explaining in a blog comment. Perhaps a good starting point for your studies would be the Wikipedia article Abiogenesis.

    “Why can’t the bodies at the morgue suddenly rise up and run around naked if they wanted to?”

    If you honestly have to ask this question, and claim that it’s a question that atheists cannot answer, then I am assuming that any further discussion with you is completely pointless, as you are so steeped in your mystical mumbo-jumbo as to make reasoned debate completely out of the question.

  67. #67 solomon
    June 17, 2009

    Dan J,
    Now you claim your parents & biology gave you life.Thats the most bullshit answer I’ve ever heard.If it is destined you were born dead,than thats what you will be…A dead infant meat!It’s only you can’t answer it & thats what it is!The very simple question you can’t answer yet youre putting forth that science crap of yours.Yeah…what you can only put forth is your dead amino acids or proteins.Abiogenesis…don’t scare me with that crap.And I’am not assuming, I will guarantee the Atheists will not be able to answer who gave them life.
    And another thing….
    [There is no "who" that caused life to arise on this planet.]
    Youre saying this because you don’t have the answer to the main argument.You are just using words to twist but without substence.

  68. #68 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    June 17, 2009

    I am tempted to call “Poe” on solomon.

    …I remember a song…When they begin….the beguine…by Johhny Mathis.I like that song.Ok back to serious matters…

  69. #69 solomon
    June 17, 2009

    Dan J,
    Now you claim your parents & biology gave you life.Thats the most bullshit answer I’ve ever heard.If it is destined you were born dead,than thats what you will be…A dead infant meat!It’s only you can’t answer it & thats what it is!The very simple question you can’t answer yet youre putting forth that science crap of yours.Yeah…what you can only put forth is your dead amino acids or proteins.Abiogenesis…don’t scare me with that crap.And I’am not assuming, I will guarantee the Atheists will not be able to answer who gave them life.
    And another thing….
    [There is no "who" that caused life to arise on this planet.]
    Youre saying this because you don’t have the answer to the main argument.You are just using words to twist but without substence.Whyn don’t you come straight to the point, to the basis & the core of the argument.Why go round & round with your science stuffs.I bet I can answer all in a flash.

  70. #70 solomon
    June 17, 2009

    Mike Haubrich,FCD
    [I am tempted to call "Poe" on solomon]
    Oh..don’t mention that word again…I’am about to Vomit! hearing that silly word.Is that all…
    I bet you too can’t answer what youre refering as Poe will question later.

  71. #71 Jason Thibeault
    June 17, 2009

    Since the chemical chain reaction that began billions of years ago first started, as described by Dan J, all life has been but a part of this chain reaction. When one life form procreates, all it’s doing is starting another iteration in this chain reaction. When that entity’s conditions no longer meet the necessary requirements for the continuation of that chain reaction (not getting enough oxygen or glucose or water to stoke its biological fires, not having all its organs intact to continue its biological processes by accident or murder, having too many age-related cell deaths, etc.), then it dies. The chain reaction stops working in that part of the whole biomass that is Planet Earth.

    That’s the simple answer. That’s as dumbed down as I can get. And I don’t know why I bother since you’ve twice suggested that you don’t need to read anything I’ve told you to read, or even read my own comment. If you refuse to answer or even read this explanation (which by the way is the point of both abiogenesis, which apparently frightens you, and evolution, which you dismiss out of hand for being too unlike your faith), then you are blinded by your faith and this conversation cannot continue until you open your mind which has long been cemented shut.

    tl;dr: you won’t convert us because we have facts, reason, and a really good idea what’s actually going on, on our side.

  72. #72 choppers
    June 17, 2009

    great article Thanks

  73. #73 Dan J
    June 17, 2009

    I’m calling “Poe” too. Solomon says القرآن is his holy book, yet sounds like some hillbilly from the backwoods of Tennessee. The problem is that she/he is trying too hard to sound all back-woods. Doing a good job at playing exceedingly dense though.

  74. #74 Jason Thibeault
    June 17, 2009

    I say no Poe… but very likely very young. 14, 15 maybe, tops.

  75. #75 Greg Laden
    June 17, 2009

    I have every reason to believe, but I can’t tell you why, that Solomon is not a POE

  76. #76 Jason Thibeault
    June 17, 2009

    Very well, I shall argue more thoroughly the points Solomon raised.

    Do you or your great great grand father witness how the Universe came about?They are only guessing right.The theory of evolution or the big bang is just a lame & weak theory and can easily be challenge.

    By your same argument, how does anyone prove that any of the events in the Qoran happened? Just because your great^6 grandfather wrote it down, does it mean he was right about what he wrote? Did he witness it himself, or was he writing down what someone else told him?

    One doesn’t need to be present at an event to know an event happened. Evidence is available after the fact, if you look for it and don’t close your mind to it just because it contradicts your holy book. Since you claim that there is a God, and a hell, it’s up to you to find evidence of this (outside of your book), and show it to us. Because we’ve found lots of evidence for what we believe (being science), and it all suggests pretty well the same thing, we have a pretty good idea as to how old the universe is, and we have a pretty good idea that space itself is expanding because everything everywhere seems to be receding from us (no matter how slowly because closer stuff doesn’t seem to recede as fast).

    It could’nt surpass the wondering of the hearts of the intricate beings around us.Look at what you eat.The meats and the fruits.How most of it were delicious?An explosion can cause most of them to taste like charcoal.

    Again, the Big Bang is not an “explosion”, like where something blows up (e.g. dynamite). It is more an expansion, like where you put raisins in a loaf of bread, and the raisins stay the same size but they get spaced out as the bread rises. It did probably generate a lot of heat for all the matter in the universe to go from a singularity to a much bigger “space” all at once, or in however short a time it did it, and that heat probably led to kicking off a lot of the chemical and gravitational processes that started forming stars.

    There’s a lot of room for your idea of God, whatever name he/she has, to have created the singularity and willed it into starting to expand; there’s very little (almost no) room for God to actively manipulate this chain reaction of events. However, because time and space have no meaning outside of the context of the universe we live in, and the series of events making up its current state, there is no “before” or “outside” the universe in any meaningful manner, so it’s going to be nigh impossible to prove that God even exists outside of this time frame.

    Do you have any specific questions outside of the ones I’ve already addressed? If you’re having trouble with any of the bigger words, I can try smaller ones and still explain exactly all this. And I’m not being patronizing, I honestly want you to listen to me as much as I’m listening to you.

  77. #77 Dan J
    June 17, 2009

    Solomon: What I believe is what I can see with my eyes, touch with my hands, and measure with tools developed by the intelligence of my fellow human beings.

    I do not believe in any god or gods. What can you show me that could in any way convince me that you are correct, that God (Allah) does exist? What can you put in my hands, show to my eyes, allow me to measure with tools, that will let me know that there is a god?

  78. #78 solomon
    June 17, 2009

    Hi everybody,
    Today I cannot reply any of your comments
    coz I’am very busy with office works.
    Maybe some other days godwilling.

  79. #79 solomon
    June 17, 2009

    Sorry,I cant stand the urgh to say something.
    After going through all your comments & made up explainations which I can easily deal later but for the time being
    I can just put forward one question which can surpass & put all your twisting views down the drain.
    “WHO GAVE YOU LIFE?”

  80. #80 Dan J
    June 17, 2009

    Hello Solomon. I hope you have more time to discuss this with us at a later date. Work is important.

    “WHO GAVE YOU LIFE?”

    I believe that my parents gave me life. Each of my parents contributed a gamete to produce the cell that eventually became me. Half of my DNA was contributed by my father, the other half by my mother.

    Almost all animals and plants on earth use sexual reproduction as their means of reproduction.

  81. #81 solomon
    June 18, 2009

    Dan J,(I’am able to squeeze my comments between work)

    I can also say the Leprechauns gave me life, if thats what your style of argument.Who gave the gamete or the cell life.Why can’t one postpone or continue living when death comes?Answer if youre tha man of truth.

  82. #82 Dan J
    June 18, 2009

    Hello Solomon. I’m also at work now, and have a bit of time to post.

    The gametes are living cells, just like the millions of other living cells that make up a human being. In this way, the parents each pass on a part of their life to their offspring. In a way, you could say that the “spark of life” has continued without fail since the first life began on earth, and each of us is connected by that “spark”.

    The idea of postponing death has been a passion of many people throughout history. With the many advances of medical science, humans now live much longer lives on the average than they did only a few hundred years ago.

    Death as we know it is still inevitable for us though. Cellular death seems to be “pre-programmed” to a certain extent, and much research is still being done to discover ways to help more people live longer and healthier lives.

    For now I must return to my duties. I look forward to discussing more with you later.

  83. #83 solomon
    June 18, 2009

    Dear Dan J,(my boss is eyeing me,just a short comment)
    The core of my argument is who gave every being life or death at any instant..Whether it is a human,the angels,the satan,the microbes,germs or cells or plants or the stone.Have you ever heard of a dead cell?The spark of life that you are wondering about is actually the ‘Rokh’or a sort of an unexplainable life energy that God put into the body.And when God took it back, the body becomes lifeless.It’s some sort of a baterry operated toy,but the Rokh is much more complicated and unimaginable.People may live longer but they can’t live forever.

  84. #84 Jason Thibeault
    June 18, 2009

    Do you believe us when we say that chemicals can cause reactions in other chemicals? That chemicals can fuse, polymerize, catalyze, and do all sorts of other weird stuff, when conditions are right, or when they meet the right other chemical, all by themselves, perfectly naturally, almost as though those chemicals were designed that way?

    Do you also believe us when we say that the molecules that make up RNA and (later) DNA, are also just made up of chemicals?

    If you believe both of these, then it’s not a huge stretch to imagine that, once you have all sorts of chemicals on a planet, and the conditions are right, that a chemical reaction could start all by itself, right? And that chemical reaction is, basically, the spark of life that we’re talking about — that word “abiogenesis” that you said scares you.

    Once that spark starts, it keeps going and going, taking resources out of the environment, starting new copies of itself, all by itself without any outside help. Let it do this for four billion years and you get all the life we see today. All the trees, the fungus, the animals, the worms in the ground, the bacteria, the insects, the apes, the humans, the dogs, the cats, everything. It’s all life. Life is just this runaway chemical reaction. It’s not magic… it’s just nature. When your time runs out, and the chemical reaction that is you no longer continues to catalyze glucose and oxygen and water into fuel to keep yourself running, then you die, and your body returns to the earth as biomass that, maybe, one day, might become oil, a few million years from now.

    And I bet it’s happened on a lot of other planets too. We can’t be the only place in this universe where life has started all by itself just because the chemicals where there and the conditions were right. Though, this universe is vast. Way bigger than what you think. It’s not big enough for God to live inside, because if he exists, he made it all, and how can you build a house if you’re inside it the whole time?

    Yes, life itself is amazing. And it’s special, and it’s important. But it’s not magic. And it’s probably not unique to Earth, either.

  85. #85 Dan J
    June 18, 2009

    Hello Solomon,
    I think we are getting to some common ground for our discussion. The ‘Rokh’ that you speak of interests me. Is this (روح) which you refer to? The nearest word in English may be “spirit”, but it is difficult to translate such terms easily.

    Cell theory is the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure for all living things. The development of cell theory began in the middle 1600′s, when advances in optics allowed microscopes to see much smaller structure than ever before. The theory developed over a period of 200 years after that, but even then the intricate operations of the internal cell structures were not understood.

    But what provides the “life” for these cells? The various chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life are collectively called metabolism.

    As an atheist, I do not believe there is any “being” who gives life or takes it away. I believe it is simply a biochemical process taking place within the cells of our body. The “Rokh” may have been a good explanation for most people before these processes were understood, but scientific study has found explanations that make more sense to me.

    I cannot say that I think people will never live forever. Physical immortality is far beyond our grasp now, but who knows what science may develop in the centuries ahead?

  86. #86 solomon
    June 19, 2009

    Jason,
    Why can’t a corpse with its chemical reactions still going on inside their body rise up & run around naked like their zombies friends if they wanted to?Why do the chemical rections made them rot rather than livelier?What sort of energy or spark that triggers the chemical reactions?Who determines the chemicals react at the right condition?How can a healthy man with its body continues to catalyze glucose and oxygen can suddenly becomes lifeless when knocked down by a trailer? No…no chemical reactions is just a lame reason for one to be alive.One becomes dead in as natural cause as possible ie through accidents,heart attacks,stroke etc. so that it is not strange enough for one to accept.But the core of the argument is that the time has come for God to take back the ROKH from them.

  87. #87 solomon
    June 19, 2009

    Dan J,

    Cells are structural units that made up living organisms.In
    human for example, the cells or its structure which made up its skin tissues,its flesh,its blood & billions more parts or structures of the human body.What will happens when no Rokh
    (روح) is blown into it, it will be a dead cell.Chemical processes might continue within the dead cells but there will be no life in the cell itself & it can no longer multiply.One should differentiate between chemical reactions and life or rokh (which is a form of an invincible energy)in the cell but more complicated than the gravity or magnetic fields.Rokh is confined within a certain body & it can travel everywhere that God permits & Rokh can’t be measured(which you always suggest).When a man is dead,their cells are dead too,only chemical reaction goes on for a period of time.Thats why a dead man rots.

  88. #88 Jason Thibeault
    June 19, 2009

    Once a person is dead, their brain no longer sends autonomous signals to their lungs to breathe in new oxygen, to their heart to distribute the oxygen to their organs and cells, etc. When that person has no oxygen, its metabolism stops, just like a car whose ignition is turned off. Once metabolism stops, the person’s internal chemical reactions are no longer working correctly — they may continue for a very short time while the remaining oxygen is burned off inside the body, but after that, once the person is dead, it rots because of dessication (the evaporation of water), and decomposition (being eaten by bacteria). These are not “normal” chemical reactions taking place because the person is not catalyzing glucose and water and oxygen any more, so that is why you cannot expect that a person would jump up and start walking around. Its brain is no longer able to send signals to its muscles, and its muscles no longer have the oxygen and glucose it needs to produce movement.

    I am of course oversimplifying our understanding of the human body. There are organs that do things like filter our blood, that convert raw sugars into glucose, etc., but each of those organs has a specific function in keeping the rest of the system up and running.

    If a person is hit by a truck, any number of those organs will take damage. All that damage could lead to your body breaking down. If medical attention is available, you could bring a person back to life, if the person is not beyond such help. If it was not simply metabolism driven by the ongoing ability to breathe and your heart to beat, then all of medicine is a way of denying God his will, when he tries to remove the Rokh from the person. Do you believe that stopping a person from dying by using medicine, is a form of heresy against God?

  89. #89 solomon
    June 19, 2009

    Jason Thibeault,
    That’s what I’am implying & just as what’s youve said.

    [Once a person is dead, their brain no longer sends ...bla...bla....bla... (being eaten by bacteria).]It all happen when someone is already dead.When the Rokh is taken out from the body.Does what youre refering has the similarity with what I’ve said earlier.Every automation of the body will came to a halt.The main argument is I’am refering to your view that life came about of chemical reactions.Now have I prooved and you unrealizingly agree with my views?And no matter how the body rots, it is sure starting to rot after no more Rokh is available.Thats why when the man is hit by a truck if it is destined he will die,no matter how active the chemical reactions in his body or how well he receives medication he will be a dead meat.Medicine or medical help are just mens effort to save one’s life but no amount of it is justs.I’ve seen videos individuals escapes death with light bruises & those who dies peacefully in their sleep.That’s one phenomena that need explaination.Its again the Rokh which is the ultimate energy that makes ones dead or alive and the later is just what seems to be as a natural cause of death.

  90. #90 Dan J
    June 19, 2009

    Hello Solomon,
    Every cell comes from other cells. All cells are alive when they are created (cells can multiply in different ways). Cells die in one of two different ways. Necrosis is cellular death that occurs because of trauma or injury to the cell, which provokes an inflammatory response. Programmed cell death is the death of a cell that is mediated by an intracellular program. This is carried out in a regulated process which generally confers advantage during an organism’s life-cycle. PCD serves fundamental functions during both plant and metazoa (multicellular animals) tissue development.

    As Jason mentioned about decomposition above, the progression of decomposition of the flesh of dead organisms can also be described as taking place in four phases: (1) fresh (autolysis), (2) bloat (putrefaction), (3) decay (putrefaction and carnivores) and (4) dry (diagenesis).

    I think that our main point of contention comes from your statement that Rokh (روح) cannot be measured. I believe that everything in our universe that is real can be observed and measured. This means that anything that cannot be observed or measured (for me) is a part of what people call “supernatural”, meaning “above nature”. This seems to agree with what most people think about their god or gods, in that they are above or beyond nature, or above all things.

    My atheism reflects my belief that nothing is beyond or above nature. I believe that the natural world around us is the whole of what is real.

    Of course, many things that were at one time thought to be supernatural have since been explained by scientific means. Thunder was once thought to have a supernatural cause, but investigation and observation shows us that it is in fact due to a sonic shock wave caused by the rapid expansion of air surrounding a lightning strike.

    There is still much that science has not fully explained, but the investigation continues. Humans seem to have an insatiable thirst for knowledge of the universe around them, and more is learned about our universe every day.

  91. #91 Andrew
    June 19, 2009

    Who ‘first’ explained thunder, and when?

  92. #92 Jason Thibeault
    June 19, 2009

    According to Wikipedia, the “first” postulated hypothesis of the origin of thunder was made by Aristotle, speculating that the clouds were colliding. In the 19th century, they thought it was lightning causing a vacuum. The current accepted consensus evolved in the 20th century suggesting that it’s the sudden expansion of superheated plasma causing a shockwave through the air, and that is being borne out by present experimentation with simulated lightning.

    Just because an explanation is “first”, doesn’t mean it’s “best” or even “right”. Science is self-correcting, not dogmatic.

  93. #93 greg laden
    June 19, 2009

    But what about the “bowling hypothesis”?

  94. #94 Jason Thibeault
    June 19, 2009

    I dunno, Greg. Who initially proposed it? Did they test their hypothesis?

    I propose let’s set up an experiment. Invite God out to some bowling, and if it thunders that night, then we have an answer. Doubly so if we go on to bowl horribly (because God was obviously forcing us to have a crappy game so we wouldn’t beat him).

    I wonder if we could stick Him with the tab (and the bar tab too!)?

  95. #95 Dan J
    June 19, 2009

    Anaximander (ca 611-547 BCE) and Anaximenes (ca 585-528 BCE), both followers of the great Greek natural philosopher Thales (ca 600 BCE), both believed that air smashing against the clouds caused thunder and, as the air struggled its way through the clouds, it kindled a flame which was lightning.

    Anaxogoras (ca 499-427 BCE) believed that thunder resulted when fire flashing through clouds (lightning) was quenched by the water in the cloud. Democritus (ca 460-370 BCE) suggested that thunder and lightning were due to the unequal mixing of particles within clouds which caused violent motions, the resulting sound of which was thunder.

    Theories such as these held sway for over two thousand years. Rene Descartes suggested in 1637 that thunder resulted when higher clouds descended onto lower ones, the sound of their collision reverberating in the air space between the cloud layers.

    Robert Hooke, famed British physicist, deduced in the mid-seventeenth century that the duration of thunder was dependent upon the distance between the lightning stroke and the observer.

    Meteorologist L. C. Veenema observed nearly every thunderstorm occurring in his area from 1895 to 1916 to determine how far thunder could be heard. His studies concluded that thunder generally could not be heard more than 25 km from the lightning flash although in certain instances, it could be heard up to and beyond 100 km (60 miles) away.

    Benjamin Franklin, among others, performed experiments in the eighteenth century which showed that lightning was an electrical discharge. Franklin reasoned that if an electrically generated spark produced in the laboratory made a loud snap, then lightning should also produce a sound.

    By the end of the nineteenth century, the relationship between lightning and thunder had been established, but the exact process of cause and effect was still debated among scientists. There were four primary theories at about this time.

    1. Lightning caused a vacuum to form when passing through the air. When the vacuum collapsed, the air rapidly rushed back in producing a thunderous reverberation.

    2. Lighting caused water in its path to be rapidly heated, becoming steam at enormous pressure. The rapid expansion of that steam is what caused the thunder.

    3. The electrical discharge decomposed water into its atomic components: hydrogen and oxygen. These elements then explosively recombined in the great heat of the lightning stroke. The explosion, of course, would be the sound of thunder.

    4. The electrical discharge broke down water into its atomic components: hydrogen and oxygen. These elements then explosively recombined in the intense heat of the lightning. The resulting explosion produced the sound that was heard as thunder.

    An 1888 article in Scientific American, Gustave-Adolphe Hirn advanced what was a nearly complete (his “millionth of a second” interpretation we now know to be inaccurate) picture of the cause and effect as we know it today:

    thunder is due simply to the fact that the air traversed by an electrical spark, that is, a flash of lightning, is suddenly raised to a very high temperature, and has its volume, moreover, considerably increased. The column of gas thus suddenly heated and expanded is sometimes several miles long, and as the duration of the flash is not even a millionth of a second, it follows that the noise burst forth at once from the whole column, though for a observer in any one place it commences where the lightning is at the least distance….the beginning of the thunderclap gives us the minimum distance of the lightning, and the length of the thunder clap gives us the length of the column.

    So, who was “first”? It’s difficult to say, but I would suggest that Hirn’s theory was the most accurate of those proposed before the twentieth century.

  96. #96 Jason Thibeault
    June 19, 2009

    Given my only cursory research (I mean, I only looked at Wikipedia, for crying out loud!), it’s no wonder you were able to beat my earliest hypothesis by almost a full three hundred years. Research FTW! Well done Dan!

  97. #97 Dan J
    June 19, 2009

    I messed up a bit with my editing. The fourth of the primary theories should be something like this:

    4. In 1903, J.A. Lyon expressed disagreement with the theories involving steam or electrolysis. He pointed out that electrical discharges produced in the laboratory through atmospheres which did not contain water vapor or explosive gases still produced audible sounds. Lyon’s theory for thunder was similar to that proposed previously (1888) by Hirn.

  98. #98 greg laden
    June 19, 2009

    Interesting.

    The Efe pygmies that I worked with have their own theory. They say that lightning is like fire but much much hotter because it can destroy a tree. They say that lightning causes thunder, and that the sound of the lightning travels slower than the visual part because the farther away you are the longer it takes for the sound to get to you, like a person’s voice yelling at you on a distant hilltop. And, they say, avoid the open hilltop because you could get hit by lightning.

    Keep in mind that in that rain forest, it rains every day except during the dry season, and almost every single drop of rain comes from what most people in the US, Europe, etc. would call a “severe thunderstorm”

  99. #99 Dan J
    June 19, 2009

    It sounds as though the Efé are a rather logically-minded people.

  100. #100 khan
    June 19, 2009

    I propose let’s set up an experiment. Invite God out to some bowling, and if it thunders that night, then we have an answer.

    It’s not god bowling, It’s Henry Hudson et al.

  101. #101 greg laden
    June 19, 2009

    The ghost of Henry Hudson and his crew, to be more exact. If memory serves.

  102. #102 Jason Thibeault
    June 19, 2009

    Didn’t his crew mutiny against him? I can’t imagine how cutthroat that particular bowling game would be.

  103. #103 greg laden
    June 19, 2009

    Although I just recently read a wonderful essay by a friend of mine relating the bowling theme to life long learning and stuff, I am now realizing that I don’t remember the Irving story very well, even though I grew up in sight of the Catskill Mountains.

    But yes, his crew put Henry and his son into a lifeboat in Hudson’s Bay. That was the last anyone saw of him.

  104. #104 solomon
    June 20, 2009

    Greg laden,
    I’ve posted my comments to Dan J yesterday but somehow it was not published.

    Jason & Dan J,
    Now you both are diverting the arguments about cells & Rokh to Lightning,bowling and you dare make fun of God regarding it.The only thing you will get is the burning bowling ball from hell!

  105. #105 Dan J
    June 20, 2009

    Hello Solomon,
    The reference to lightning and thunder was not meant to divert the argument, but rather as an illustration.

    What do you believe is the cause of thunder?

    Whatever your answer, why do you believe it is the correct answer?

  106. #106 Jason Thibeault
    June 20, 2009

    You believe that Rokh is the driving energy in every cell, and that it is put there and taken away by God, that it is immeasurable and invisible. What proof do you have that this is the case?

    On the other side of this argument, here’s a simple version of what we know about mitochondria within cells, how they work, and what they do. http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_mito.html

  107. #107 greg laden
    June 20, 2009

    I so much want a burning bowling ball from hell. That would be cool.

    Solomon, I’ll check the held-up comment box momentarily.

  108. #108 Greg Laden
    June 20, 2009

    Solomon, sorry, your comment is not there for me to free. Unless you are selling penis enlargement products, there were some of those.

  109. #109 solomon
    June 20, 2009

    Thanks Greg.It’s just God disallow it.
    Well for you Jason,
    The proof that is in front of you, is what you,me,Dan ,Greg is alive & communicating now if thats what you want.
    About mitochondria within cells, how they work, and what they do. http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_mito.html are all that comes after the Rokh is activated.

  110. #110 Dan J
    June 20, 2009

    Solomon: What do you believe is the cause of thunder, and why do you believe it is the correct answer?

  111. #111 Jason Thibeault
    June 20, 2009

    Also, can you prove that Rokh exists if it is not measurable, invisible, and works exactly like the chemical reaction we know exists and can measure?

  112. #112 solomon
    June 20, 2009

    Jason,
    As I’ve said earlier,why you always need measurement.Does feelings,dreams,imagination, needs measurements?You have nothing else to put forth to deny Rokh existence nomatter how often I’ve explained.It exists because people & living being keeps on living & dying.Rokh is not & doent work like chemicals.

  113. #113 Dan J
    June 20, 2009

    Solomon:
    Invisible pink unicorns exist because people keep living and dying. This I know to be true, because invisible pink unicorns hold the power of life and death for humanity, giving us life at birth, and taking it away again at death.

    Tell me why this statement is fundamentally any different than your assertion that Rokh (روح) exists.

    And what about my question to you about thunder?

  114. #114 Jason Thibeault
    June 20, 2009

    If you don’t believe in pink unicorns, you have to put forth proof that disproves they exist! Otherwise they must exist!

    You know as well as I do that pink unicorns don’t exist, Solomon, even though neither of us can absolutely disprove them. We can say “nobody’s ever seen or photographed a pink unicorn” but that’s saying that you need to measure it!

    Why do you expect ME to DISPROVE your “Rokh”, when it’s YOU that’s saying it exists? The person making the positive claim has to put forth evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and since we already have all sorts of scientifically obtained proof that life works via chemistry, rather than a magic spirit force put there by God, you have to provide us not only with proof that we’re wrong, but also proof that you’re right.

  115. #115 solomon
    June 20, 2009

    Jason,
    You have no proof at all that life works via chemistry alone.Those are only processes after the Rokh is blown in.You cant compare Rokh with unicorns(bed time stories stuffs).Rokhs are real,they exists and I’ve told you many times,it exists because you are alive and it will leave you when youre dead later.What’s the difference in describing “nobody’s ever seen or photographed a pink unicorn” with “nobody’s ever seen or photographed a WIND”.Yes you can measure wind via its velocity or volumes or compositions but what is the real substence is there in the wind?Pink unicorns might be images in mans imagination.It doesnt poses any proofs coz it does nothing that you can witness, while Rokh have proove something.It has prooved thaT YOU ARE NOT A DEAD MEAT NOW(at real time).It’s not me that says Rokh exists but its God who says it and I believe whatever God says.

  116. #116 Jason Thibeault
    June 20, 2009

    That’s exactly right — I have no proof that life works by chemistry alone. I do not intend to prove a negative, since that is impossible. I can’t prove that God or Rokh doesn’t exist. But reality only really concerns itself with what really does exist, right? So, anything that exists must leave evidence that it exists. We can prove wind exists, even though it’s invisible directly since all wind is is air being moved around you and air is invisible, because it has indirect effects — you can feel it on your skin and in your hair, and you can see it moving the trees, and you can measure it and show that it is moving at a certain speed.

    Humans are only able to see a limited amount of things that have to be big enough to be visible. We can’t see really tiny, loosely packed things like air particles. We can’t hear but a small fraction of the sound spectrum, we can’t see but a small fraction of the light spectrum, and we can’t detect x-rays or infrared light in any way. But they exist, because they produce measurable effects in our universe.

    Rokh as you define it, is a catch-all for “it is alive”. It can’t be measured because it’s a state, not an energy. When you say “this person is alive because God breathed Rokh into them”, it’s like saying “the person is alive because they are alive”. It is meaningless in itself.

    Since we are pretty sure that life began when chemical conditions were correct for it, because all the evidence is pointing in that direction presently, we can say with some degree of confidence that biology is an extension of chemistry, and chemistry is all we are. A whole lot of chemistry, mind you — think about how many billions of cells you make up, and how that chemical process is happening inside each cell, making the cell divide to cause you to reach adult size, then slowly dying off as you reach old age then death.

    If you cannot disprove pink unicorns, then you must admit that pink unicorns exist! Just like because I cannot disprove Rokh, I must admit Rokh exists.

    Also, where did God say that Rokh exists? Were you a witness to God saying that Rokh exists? How do you know God said it? How do you know God wasn’t made up by your great^6 grandfather?

  117. #117 Dan J
    June 20, 2009

    Solomon said:

    I believe whatever God says.

    SO what did God say? “God” supposedly says a lot of things, and a lot of those things contradict each other. Which God you choose is the one you think is correct. All others are wrong. Why is this so? Can you prove that the others are wrong? No. It’s only because your particular holy book says they are wrong.

    You still haven’t answered about the thunder.

  118. #118 solomon
    June 21, 2009

    Dan J,
    I don’t have to answer all that you asked.Your questions are just words creations without points and substence & always twisted and just the same old argument repeated again & again.You think I cant spot your trick?Theres no point in answering your question coz it does not make you ponder to its truth but made you run from it.I dont know which God you are refering that contradicts.Put forth the contradictions if youre the man of truth.God gave life to human to test them with orders & prohibitions, thats why God made them can hear & can see.To witness Gods creations.Gods particular holy book does not only says others are wrong but already prooved others are wrong but they keep on unbelieving & try other means to deny it.
    I havent answer about the lightning & thunder coz I didnt have the time yet.

  119. #119 Dan J
    June 21, 2009

    Hello Solomon,
    I do not mean to twist any words to mean differently from what they should mean. I certainly don’t mean to trick you, or even to offend you, as a person. I respect you for your continued participation in our discussion. Many lesser men would have simply said that we atheists will burn in hell, then leave.

    I do not believe in hell, nor in heaven, nor in Allah, nor in Jinn, nor in Angels, Nothing anyone has every shown me or told me has given me reason to believe in any of these things. What is it that has convinced you that these things are real?

    I have some questions for you, as a follower of the Muslim faith:

    Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord?

    Can Angels take away life?

    Will all Muslims go to Hell?

    Who helped the Israelites build the golden calf? (Surah 20:90-100)

  120. #120 solomon
    June 21, 2009

    Hello everybody,
    I will not be able to answer comments for 2 days coz
    I’am attending a course,but will write if I’am able to squeeze between time.

  121. #121 Jason Thibeault
    June 21, 2009

    I’m sure I speak for Dan when I say we appreciate you telling us so in advance. Work always comes first, don’t do anything that’ll get you into trouble by posting here!

    If you do get the chance, I’m very interested in your answers to Dan’s questions. And if you ever decide to go back and answer any of my questions, the ones you said you don’t have to answer, that would also be great.

    Thanks!

  122. #122 solomon
    June 23, 2009

    Hi Dan J,
    Now I hurriedly try to reply your comments but sorry if its not up to your espectation.
    Sorry if I’ve doubt your sincerity or intentions earlier.
    First of all to have a feel of Gods existence you have to exercise a certain practice.
    Lets start as viewing ourself as humble and as small or as disdain than a dust.Throw away our skeptics,our boastfull feelings for a while.Then on a clear serene night raise you head and look at the skies with billions of stars.Then wonder..who could have done this.Can a big bang did this..No..no it just can’t be.This is a hell of a creation I’am seeing & witnessing.Maybe its Nature…but how..can I trust that simple word..No..no…my heart just can’t buy that,I’am just forcing my heart.Theres still a feeling of emptiness or vacuum in my heart.Again it could’nt be.My friend told me God creats the heavens & the earth and everything in it.Yes…this sounds possible.Focus yourself on the colony of ants.Hey guys I can make you a huge sand castle, and I can be your protector from other colonies.What does this all implies.The powerful being can do a lot for the lesser ones.
    Now the only thing you have in mind is just choice.Which choice I’am going to take.The one’s who fulfils my wonders accompanied with guidance & proofs or the one which can keep on changing views & solely based on findings & theories which could be challenged.
    How could prophet Mohammad, the iliterate,with no basic knowledge of science & literature can come out with something so poetic,so scientific,so accurate,with no contradictions if not being taught by some powerful or the most intelligent being?Does that wonders everyone.As I’ve said, now were left with choice.And choosing will also not be a simple job.In one corner there is this Satan and our inconfidence or doubts which will always trick you in choosing the wrong way and the other one is God which is most loving and most merciful which have gave you the warning and which only wants you to be saved from the fires of hell.
    Other exercises that is vital to feel God is to stop conducting sins,especially the big ones like taking other Gods as god and commits fornication,mutiny to own mother or father.When one stops all these acts God will slowly shows their heart to the right path.God dislike proud or full of pride ,brutal,very cruel,inhuman personalities.
    In other words one have to strive to have a clean heart for God to access oneself & show them the way.In other way God chooses the one who will be given the insight and the ones who will be left swayed.But for those who are really seeking for truth God won’t let their effort go to waste.
    God says he poured rain or clean water from the sky for you to drink.Does’nt it occur to you that you can straight away drink from the sky..clean water.From your scientific point of view its just the process of evaporation,condensation & vaporization,but who planned all these systems,to follow its processes, to outlined why it has to be that way.It all came back to God who have said it in the Qoran.
    Another reason may arise from our background,from childhood we are brainwashed that everything has to go in line with science.Try to think out of the science system,I mean other aproach that you might have not thought that there is,which is higher than science itself.I’am not implying one can’t rely on science,but not to rely on science alone.Science is only a minute part of Gods knowledge & it don’t contradicts with Gods words, if you really study the Qoran.And for that all, it convince me that there is God,heaven,hell,angels,jihn,coz God told it so elaborately in the Qoran, and it takes me only to believe that God exists and what comes after what God says is sure to exist & sure to be real.
    Allah can be seen but not at this time.But only those who are in heavens can see Allah as clear as a fine day.Only Mohammad have seen Allah while others like Moses have only heard his voice.These facts actually need more elaboration & sometimes ulamaks have different views to these matters.These need to be advice by experts actually.I’am quoting the version which I have only heard in religous classes.
    Yes certain Angels are assigned by God to take away all lifes including their own.
    You should not put the question this way”Will all Muslims go to Hell?”You should have asked ” Who will go to hell?”.To answer the later one would be,all the infidels will go to hell & will stay there forever.Muslims who commit sins will go to hell first until God forgive them & sent them to heaven.In fact all muslims who believes there is only one God that is Allah will eventually go to heaven sooner or later.
    Most of the Israelites,or followers of Moses themselves helps to build the golden calf,headed by their leader called Sammirri who have learned magic or supernatural powers earlier.They did this by melting their gold jewelleries & craft it into a calf with voices.Theres more to these stories which I can’t tell now(busy).You must have read the chapters in the Qoran,why do you still ask it from me.
    Well that all for now I hope it satisfy you and may God shows you the right path.
    As for you Jason maybe your comments will be attended some other times.

  123. #123 solomon
    June 25, 2009

    Dear Jason,
    I would like to reply on your no 116 comments.
    You say ‘So, anything that exists must leave evidence that it exists.’Yes I agree with you.The same with rokh, you can see unlimited evidence around you that prooves rokh exists,that is all kinds of living things that moves or that cannot move around you.
    Its your word that says”the person is alive because they are alive”thats why ‘It is meaningless in itself.’
    You should have said “the person is alive because there is a rokh inside him”That sounds logic.Like that toy moves because its baterry is activated & the mechanism inside the toy make it moves.
    Yes, you are preety sure that life began when chemical conditions were correct for it, because all the evidence is pointing in that direction presently, you can say with some degree of confidence that biology is an extension of chemistry, and chemistry is all we are, but you still can’t run away with the question’What triggers it?’It still comes back to the rokh,the invincible entity that gives life.
    And the processes of how many billions of cells we make up, and how that chemical process is happening inside each cell, making the cell divide to cause us to reach adult size,just can’t happen before the rokh is blown in and abruptly stop when it is taken out and it don’t have to wait until you are old.You can’t even cheat it by hiding in some heavily guard fortress.
    Lets replace pink unicorns with pink cheetas for a while(I prefer pink panthers but pink panthers exist in movies so I cannot take it as an example)Now we all know that pink cheetas does’nt exist.Now…lets mimick your sentence..
    “If you cannot disprove pink cheetas, then you must admit that pink cheetas exist!”…wait a minute..Do I hear that if I cannot disprove that ‘something that is sure does not exist but only in mans imagination & have no proofs of its existence’then what the hell must I admit that it exists!
    Yes you cannot disprove rokh because it exists.
    Rokh is one subject that God does not elaborate much in the Qoran and God says let me alone knows its secrecy & just leave it to me to manage it.I think its something complicated for someone to think it in great depth, and surely God knows that fact.
    I know that you are throwing back my words by saying ‘Were you a witness to God saying that Rokh exists?’
    If you still remember my no 64 comments [Do you or your great great grand father witness how the Universe came about?They are only guessing right.]You can see that my words is followed by [They are only guessing right.]This implies that your great great grandfather are only guessing by saying that the creation of the universe is through the big bang or nature theory as if they witness its came abouts.And in your case of questioning me regarding ‘Were you a witness to God saying that Rokh exists?’, theres no need for a witness at all,when God says Rokh exists and because it really exists & with proofs.And the proof is what I’ve repeated so many times & if you want to hear it again is ‘you are not a dead meat now’.
    And you ask me ‘How do i know God said it?I know God say and did say it because God said it so in the Qoran and God did say it because what is said is all true,with proofs,accurate & does not contradict.Who else can determine like what God have outlined?Ask yourself can my great^66 grandfather able to produce something close to what is depicted as what the Qoran says?

  124. #124 Jason Thibeault
    June 25, 2009

    Amazing. Truly astounding.

    The Qoran exists because some people contemporary to Mohammad wrote it. The Qoran says it is the divinely inspired word of God, so you absolutely have to believe it, because God exists, because the Qoran says so. Can you not see how circular that is?

    You do the same thing with Rokh — everything that is alive is filled with Rokh, and the proof that Rokh exists is that stuff is alive. And I fear you missed my point with the pink unicorn bit, and I understand that the sarcasm may have been lost due to our language barrier, where I said that you have to admit that pink unicorns exist because you can’t disprove them.

    The reason that science believes it’s all chemistry is because chemistry is tangible and provable. And when you do things to change the chemistry, you can either improve the life form (life-saving medicine) or make it worse, or maybe kill it outright.

    Our argument is exactly as though you and I were both investigators and we were sent to investigate a murder in a dark alley. Neither of us were around for the murder, but there was definitely a murder, because there’s a body. I (representing science) take pictures of everything, collect evidence samples, and generally try to reverse-engineer what happened in the event. Let’s say I figure out that because the body is cold, it happened several hours before, and the knife holes in the body suggest it was a stabbing, and because two sets of bloody footprints lead up the fire escape, the murderers made their getaway through the adjacent building.

    You (representing religion) stand at the entrance of the alley and read from a book you had read the night before, and say that the murder had to have been committed by an invisible man dressed in a special invisibility-and-teleporting-suit, using a rope to strangle the person, then teleported away using his magical invisible suit’s powers. You then go on to say that my investigation is “only guessing” because I wasn’t there, and that your book, because it was written, must prove it is so.

    Neither of us were there to see it, but one of us has a better case for what we’re saying, because the evidence points in that direction. Just like evidence shows that we’re chemistry, and not some magical life energy that can be added to and taken away from objects at God’s sole discretion. Until you can show me an otherwise inanimate object jump into life by God’s will, and in a way that is NOT explainable by simple chemistry, then you actually have no proof that what you say is the explanation for things being alive.

    Never mind that the writer of that book was talking about a fictional murder, not the one we see before us. Likewise, I’m afraid, your holy book is talking about a fictional universe and how that fictional universe was created, and it is not talking about the universe we live in now.

    The standards for evidence are much, much higher when you have to show how things work instead of just running with a really old book that tried to explain things and got a lot of stuff right (about morals), but also got a lot of things wrong (about morals, and how the universe was formed, how life works, etc.), a long long time ago. Because that’s all religion is — it’s one long attempt to justify the original text, despite all the things it obviously got wrong about the universe.

    Don’t get me wrong — religion is a useful tool for structuring morality in a pre-scientific society. But once science came along and started to figure out how things really work, religion was bound to start getting squeezed out.

  125. #125 Dan J
    June 25, 2009

    Hello Solomon,
    Thank you so much for your response. I think it is good that we can have interesting conversations such as this, even though we disagree on many points.

    You mention:

    Then wonder..who could have done this? Can a big bang did this?..No..no it just can’t be. This is a hell of a creation I’am seeing & witnessing.Maybe its Nature…but how..can I trust that simple word..No..no…my heart just can’t buy that, I’m just forcing my heart. There’s still a feeling of emptiness or vacuum in my heart. Again it couldn’t be. My friend told me God creates the heavens & the earth and everything in it. Yes…this sounds possible.

    I do not wonder “who did this”. I know that current scientific study supports the “big bang” occurring about 13.7 billion years ago. I trust in science and the scientific method to explain the workings of nature, and I feel no ‘emptiness or vacuum in my heart’. I am happy in life believing that there are not, and never were, and never will be, gods of any kind.

    I still don’t understand how it “sounds possible” that a god created the heavens and earth and everything in it. I do understand that this would have been a rational decision for a person living hundreds of years ago, when our means of studying the world around us were very crude. I feel no need for supernatural explanations when rational scientific methods provide the information I need.

    You said:

    How could prophet Mohammad, the illiterate, with no basic knowledge of science & literature can come out with something so poetic, so scientific, so accurate, with no contradictions if not being taught by some powerful or the most intelligent being?

    I find it difficult to believe that Muhammad was illiterate, having worked as a merchant long before receiving his first “revelation”. I also fail to see how the term “scientific” can be applied to the القرآن‎ (al-qur’ān). But what about contradictions?

    What food will the people in hell have to eat?

    No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari
    —S. 88:6 Y. Ali

    or:

    Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds,
    —S. 69:36 Y. Ali

    or is it this:

    Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
    For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
    For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
    The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
    Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
    Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.
    Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire.
    —S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

    Unfortunately, I am at work now and must return to my duties. I hope to return later today to write more.

    My Best Regards to All,
    Dan

  126. #126 solomon
    June 26, 2009

    Hello everybody,
    I will not be able to comment for 3 days(off & pub. holiday)

  127. #127 solomon
    June 28, 2009

    Jason,
    The Qoran is not simply wrote by some people contemporary to Mohammad.It is the Wahyu or thoughts from God poured into the heart of Mohammad by the angel Jibrail,then Mohammad dictate it to his followers which is then written by them.
    Its not the question of we have to absolutely forced into believing it.Its the question of reading it first,understand it,reasoning & than absorbing & believing it.When we read,we know its contents,then reason it out,does its contents speaks of truth,does it contradicts?From the truth that it contains sends a message to our hearts,the sureness,the confidence & thus strengthens our belief.Theres a lot of Gods words that does not defy logic or science or other areas of knowledge.Let me coach you how to go about understanding & analysing it.First find all the sayings in the Qoran,it can be history,biology,science,mathematics,astronomy or philosophy.Then from it analyse,weigh & think and then come to conclude,does all the sayings fits?,accurate?not contradict?or prooved to be true?Not the other way round,finding ways or loopholes to deny it.You can’t find any.Is that sounds circular or does it make sense?
    What is there more to say than — everything that is alive is filled with Rokh, and the proof that Rokh exists is that stuff is alive.Does that seems to be the most probable answer?What else can you make up?
    You say…[I said that you have to admit that pink unicorns exist because you can't disprove them.]
    I have answer these question previously, but you know what…the way you put your question it looks that as if I’am the one who is saying it by using the word “you” & by limiting its arguments.Do you think I cannot spot your trick.You try to trap me with your question.But I have try to answer it in the first place.Now you can answer that same question yourself.
    Yeah ok its fine you imply chemistry is tangible and provable & improvement of life form stuffs.
    Regarding the murder & the investigators stuffs..oh I’am gonna laugh at this.
    Yeah…I agree with your bla..bla…bla… investigation,theres nothing wrong with it.
    Well for the other investigator,he’s not me.He’s one of your stupid imagination.I did’nt say your investigation is only guessing, its your word.I admit & agree with your investigation.Its part of science,chemistry or logic.Whats in the true religion does not contradict with those knowledge.True religion recognize the use of knowledge in probing things.
    Never mind whether the murderer or murderers is a man or an invincible man dressed in some funny suits,the core of the argument is that the man was murdered by some means or some method.And the method is in some natural way rather than your silly imagination put forth.Lets see the case this way.The two men did commit the murder and manage to ran away.The invincible man just watches the murderers doing their job.After the victim have been stabed,the invincible man just have to take out the Rokh from the victims body, and thats it.The victim might not be dead if the invincible man just left the scene & the victim is found & be taken care of.
    Now to summed it all up, the case is only an imaginary one in which the argument is limit in such a way to trap the other party by words.Theres no real truth or substence in it.
    Thats why you cannot rely on science or human knowledge alone.You did not know the higher knowledge that God knows.Youre just a weak being, disdain than a dust just knowing a minute section of Gods knowledge which you yourself finds it difficult to understand yet have the boastful attitude to conclude things by shutting your hearts into wondering creationism which is the basic sense of logic.
    I don’t have to show you an inanimate object jump into life, thats not my job.Thats God’s job if he wills.Even if God make the stone in front of you jumping and even talk to you, you will then say…this is magic trick,coz you have earlier defy the magic that you are not a dead meat.
    And I’am not talking about any religion.I’am talking about the real religion send by Allah through Mohammad.And it is the truth.And the truth will superceed all false & lies.The Qoran will not and will never be wrong regarding any issues.Its the unbelievers who tries to sabotage its contents by saying & giving false views regarding it.

  128. #128 Dan J
    June 29, 2009

    Solomon said:

    And I’am not talking about any religion.I’am talking about the real religion send by Allah through Mohammad.And it is the truth.And the truth will superceed all false & lies.The Qoran will not and will never be wrong regarding any issues.Its the unbelievers who tries to sabotage its contents by saying & giving false views regarding it.

    Here is one of the problems. You say “real religion” meaning that all other religions are wrong or false? How do you know this? Oh, right; you know it in your heart. I know things with my brain; with my intellect. You believe that the القرآن‎ is the word of Allah: you don’t know this for a fact. It is this belief, or faith, that separates the religious from the atheists. We don’t believe things without good reason. What has religion (any religion) done to improve the lives of humans on our planet, and to increase our understanding of the universe? Now compare that to what science has done to improve our lives and understanding. Religion cannot compare. Religion is essentially a method for a small group of people to exert absolute control over others.

    And what exactly are they supposed to eat in hell? It seems that the القرآن‎ says three different things? Is that not contradictory?

  129. #129 solomon
    June 29, 2009

    Dan J,
    Yes, there is only one real religion.It is the religion brought up by Abraham,Moses,Jesus(the real one),Mohammad & many other Gods Prophets.That is the religion that beliefs theres no other god than Allah.The other religion is just make up or twisted by men.Worst still are the Atheists who thinks theres no other being thats on guard to them,believing they can do anything what their lusts pleases without be accountable for.
    What is there to boast with your brain.Even your lousy brain is lend by Allah for a while to think of Gods creations.Your eyes to witness it and your ears to hear & search for the truth.All those senses are lended or borrowed by God to you only for this living while yet you misuse it to defy and to be ungrateful to God.Boasting with what you so call intellect.Theres nothing in your just word quoting “intellect” compared to Gods most highest intellect who create everything including your heart shutted brains.Your brains capacity is as disdain as a dust compared to Gods wondrous creations.
    Even if Gods poses billions of reasons which you can see around you, yet you will defy all of them.Don’t try to fool others by saying you know things with your brain.You don’t know everything with your brain.You brain is just a weak instrument.
    You dare to say ‘What has religion (any religion) done to improve the lives of humans on our planet, and to increase our understanding of the universe?’By saying this you are implying that what have God done?
    Why don’t you look around you what have God done.God have given all that is needed by living things to live,to be alive on earth.God have poured clean water from the sky.God have made it possible to grow cereals,beans,fruits.God have grown cattle and other animals & fishes in the seas for you to eat.What else can you deny.I bet most of the foods that God gave will tastes like charcoal if you still believe this universe starts with a Big Bang.Yet you still dare to
    say science is uncomparable with religion.Now tell me what science have done with what God have done through religion.Even the knowledge of this universe is covered by this true religion.
    I think you are wasting your time citing a chicken feed argument regarding your view that the Qoran contradicts.Tell me which part contradicts if youre the man of truth?What you are doing is youre making as if the saying in the Qoran contradicts where else it does not contradict at all.Let me show you and the viewers how the sayings are twisted by you.
    In your no 125 comments you wrote;

    No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari
    —S. 88:6 Y. Ali
    “OR”
    Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds,
    —S. 69:36 Y. Ali
    “OR”
    Is that the better entertainment ..bla…bla…bla…water.
    Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire.
    —S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52
    You should have notice that you use the word “OR”.
    When you purposely use the word “OR” then you are limiting that you will eat only one of those foods found on each verses,then the other foods found in the other verses will apt to contradict.
    The word “OR” should be replaced with the word “AND”.Now can you or the viewers see how you twist it.Now it does not contradict coz you and the Atheist will eat all of the foods found in all of the verses.Another thing that shows the verses does not contradict is that at the end of every verse God does not mention the word “ONLY”.This implies that you will not only eat the food that is found in each verse and the word ‘No Food’ & ‘No Hath’at the beginning of each verse is Gods reference for the normal decent eatable foods that humans use to get on earth.

  130. #130 Dan J
    June 29, 2009

    Solomon: Please keep in mind that the following comment is not meant as a personal attack or insult against you. I like you, and I respect you as a fellow human being. With that in mind, note that I do not respect your religious ideas (or any others). You and your religion are separate things in my mind, if not in your own.

    “No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari.” How on earth can you read that and interpret it any other way than that Dhari will be the only food they eat?!!?! Oh, wait… to interpret it that way would mean your holy book has internal inconsistencies, and that can’t be right because your holy book explicitly states that it has no internal inconsistencies. That’s utter bullshit!

    Solomon said:

    Yes, there is only one real religion. It is the religion brought up by Abraham, Moses, Jesus (the real one), Mohammad & many other Gods Prophets. That is the religion that beliefs there’s no other god than Allah. The other religion is just make up or twisted by men. Worst still are the Atheists who thinks there’s no other being that’s on guard to them, believing they can do anything what their lusts pleases without be accountable for.

    You and all of your religious brethren (whether followers of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of those other “one true religion” groups) are among the most self-centered, self-righteous people on the planet. Yes, (in case you hadn’t noticed) I’ve managed to get to “uncivil” mode.

    You believe you’re right (and every other religion is wrong) for one reason: your holy book says so. All the other holy books are lies and deceptions. Of course, anyone who follows a different holy book would have the same thing to say about yours, and believe it just as fervently.

    But do you know what? I believe that although your holy book
    (and others) contains words of truth, beauty, and wisdom, it is a work of fiction. Mohammad was either intentionally deceptive when he said that god (or Gabriel) spoke to him, or he was mentally ill. There is no god, there is no satan, there are no angels or djinn. If you hear voices in your head telling you things like this, you should seek immediate psychiatric help.

    And your view of what atheists are is woefully inaccurate. To say “…believing they can do anything what their lusts pleases without be accountable for” indicates to me that you have no factual knowledge of people who do not believe in a god. You speak of accountability. You believe that you are accountable only to god. I believe I am accountable to humanity for my actions. I take personal responsibility for my actions. I don’t do things “because god told me to”. I do things because I decide to do them. I treat my fellow human beings with respect because I desire their respect in return. I treat religious ideas with scorn and contempt because those religious ideas proclaim that I am evil and misguided because I don’t believe in their god. Fuck them!

    Solomon said:

    What is there more to say than — everything that is alive is filled with Rokh, and the proof that Rokh exists is that stuff is alive. Does that seems to be the most probable answer? What else can you make up?

    This statement with its circular logic is inherently meaningless. There is no Rokh! It does not exist! It’s something Mohammad (or one of the authors of the Qu’ran) made up. You say it’s real? Prove it! That’s the way the real world works. If you can’t prove it, or at least provide some evidence of it, then you need to shut up about it until you can. Live in your little fantasy world if you like, but the rest of us want empirical evidence.

    I’m fed up with religion, with religious ideas, with religious accommodation, and with religious zealots. I’ve had it. Being civil gets us nowhere. You religious nuts can go into a desert somewhere, or a forest, and live with your holy books and holy leaders, and leave the world of science behind. No more antibiotics, no more surgeries, no more air conditioning, no more Internet, no more cell phones, no more radio or television, etc. Live life the way Mohammad did, and maybe you’ll be happier for the rest of life. The rest of us can let scientific knowledge lead us into the future.

    (There, I feel better now.)

  131. #131 solomon
    June 30, 2009

    Dan J,
    Also bear in mind that my comments too is not meant to insult anyone.It is just sheer sincerity of intentions trying to save everybody from the fires of hell.
    [How on earth can you read that and interpret it any other way than that Dhari will be the only food they eat?!!?]
    That’s the wonders & magic of Gods words.If you start interpreting it to deny it then it seems like it having consistencies.But if you interpret it by trying to find or search the truth in it, then you won’t feel any inconsistencies in it.Thats why it is better to hear the interpretation by experts,so that you will get the real meaning of Gods words.
    Yes you might get the wrong impression of the religous group when you speak in what you say during uncivil mode or more accurately out of anger coupled with the whisper from SATAN.
    Since when you become my appointed speaker by simply saying ‘you believe youre right….your holy book says so’.My holy book does not only says so,it prooves so.And I don’t simply believe I’am right,I believe what is right.Can’t you see that the other holy books are not right because they contradicts?Yes,anyone who follows a different holy book would have the same thing to say about mine,but can they argue regarding the truth,the accuracy,the non contradictions in it?I have no doubt about other holy book
    is a work of fiction but if you say the Qoran is a fiction, then collect all your allies & try to produce only one sentence as close as the Qoran if they can.They will not be able to produce it.God guarantees that.
    What return will Mohammed get by intentionally being deceptive?Wealth?Fame?He is only sponsoring the truth,and he got nothing by doing that.The only return is from Allah the almighty.And how can a mentally ill man produce such a book containing accurate accounts of knowledge, either history,biology,science,physics,astronomy,past and future events & many more knowledge that is beyond mans grasp.I don’t have to hear voices in my head,I’ve just have to question my heart regarding all thats going round aroud me & that will be enough to felt peace in my heart.
    That will be the most probable behaviour for someone who is not accountable to some powerful being.
    Its fortunate that you believe you have not done anything what your lusts pleases yet, without being accountable for.Only by being accountable to God one can control their actions and this automatically leads to the sincere accountability to humans.If not, they can’t be sincerely accountable to humans.
    It’s not my job to proove rokh exist & its real.Its Gods job & he has prooved it by ensuring that you are not a dead meat now & if you want other than that the only empirical evidence you will get is seing the fires of hell in front of you.
    No…no…no you don’t have to leave science,antibiotics, surgeries, air conditioning, Internet,cell phones, radio or television behind.You can keep on with it,God does not restrict that but remember there will always be God.

    (There, I feel better now.)…Yeah..you feel better now in this short instants on earth..but don’t regret you will feel Bitter for the whole of your afterlife.

  132. #132 Jason Thibeault
    June 30, 2009

    Also bear in mind that my comments too is not meant to insult anyone.It is just sheer sincerity of intentions trying to save everybody from the fires of hell.

    Since we don’t believe there ARE fires of hell to be saved from, your sincere wish to save us from something imaginary by telling us that everything we know is wrong, then offering no proof of such, is hard to distinguish from an insult.

    TIf you start interpreting it to deny it then it seems like it having consistencies.But if you interpret it by trying to find or search the truth in it, then you won’t feel any inconsistencies in it.

    Then you say:

    Can’t you see that the other holy books are not right because they contradicts?Yes,anyone who follows a different holy book would have the same thing to say about mine,but can they argue regarding the truth,the accuracy,the non contradictions in it?

    Hahahaha! I’m sorry, but I prefer to start with NO assumptions, rather than starting from the assumption that what I read is some kind of divinely inspired absolute truth. Likewise, I don’t make any attempt to read a book in order to deny it — only if it is plainly wrong compared to how reality actually works, do I then claim it to be wrong.

    The inconsistencies are there, just like they are there in everyone else’s books. The only difference, in your mind, between your book and their books is that you think yours is right, therefore the inconsistencies are easy to handwave away. But to you, everyone else’s books are wrong because they’re inconsistent. Pretend to be a Christian or a Jew for two seconds and imagine that their holy books are right and yours is wrong, and you’ll know why they see you as deluded and wrong just like you see them as deluded and wrong. Those of us who believe in science simply see you ALL as having the exact same problem, that you all follow a holy book that was written so long ago that it’s full of silliness that doesn’t hold up to the real world.

    Yes you might get the wrong impression of the religous group when you speak in what you say during uncivil mode or more accurately out of anger coupled with the whisper from SATAN.

    Human beings are intemperate. They are prone to getting angry when they are frustrated, especially when they have explained their position many times, very clearly, and asked for proof that is never provided, and they are still caricatured by the other side of the debate. That doesn’t mean Satan exists, nor does it mean he’s “whispering in your ear” when you get angry. It just means we are human beings.

    My holy book does not only says so,it prooves so.And I don’t simply believe I’am right,I believe what is right.

    Again. You have to prove this. You are making the claim that your book is right, out of the thousands of books to choose from. It is up to you to prove it’s right if you expect to convince us that we’re wrong. And you likely realize that you have a long uphill climb for that, which is also likely why you refuse to undertake it.

    I have no doubt about other holy book
    is a work of fiction but if you say the Qoran is a fiction, then collect all your allies & try to produce only one sentence as close as the Qoran if they can. [...] And how can a mentally ill man produce such a book containing accurate accounts of knowledge, either history,biology,science,physics,astronomy,past and future events & many more knowledge that is beyond mans grasp.

    Just because a lot of people have read it and believe it is the divinely inspired word of God, that does not mean that it is so. I don’t care how many people think a specific work is written by God’s hand, it is not so, if it was a man that put pen to paper to begin with.

    And since you are making the claim, in order to convince us, YOU have to prove that all of those pieces of knowledge are a) wiser than their contemporary knowledge, e.g. they are not simply common beliefs from the time they were written; and b) that they are accurate, and c) that they make specific predictions that can be tested and proven to be true, and d) that they contain every piece of knowledge that humans have gained since the book was written plus pieces of knowledge we haven’t yet discovered through scientific means.

    I don’t have to hear voices in my head,I’ve just have to question my heart regarding all thats going round aroud me & that will be enough to felt peace in my heart.
    That will be the most probable behaviour for someone who is not accountable to some powerful being.

    I feel peace in the idea that there is no petty vengeful God waiting to smite me just because I dared to explore the universe as it is, rather than try to convince everyone that the universe is as I want it to be. Frankly, if a God did exist, I can imagine him being mightily angry if people refused to actually observe his real creation and the intricacy of it all, instead reading and rereading a thousands-of-years-old book.

    Its fortunate that you believe you have not done anything what your lusts pleases yet, without being accountable for. [...]…Yeah..you feel better now in this short instants on earth..but don’t regret you will feel Bitter for the whole of your afterlife.

    We are accountable to the real world. We are accountable to the real people that really exist in this real world. We do not have to fear some sort of divine retribution after death in order to be good, moral, and happy people. It is beyond a shame that you are so afraid of some sort of punishment that will never come, and it is scary that this punishment is apparently the only thing keeping YOU from being evil, immoral and doing whatever your “lusts” please.

    It’s not my job to proove rokh exist & its real.Its Gods job & he has prooved it by ensuring that you are not a dead meat now & if you want other than that the only empirical evidence you will get is seing the fires of hell in front of you.

    Yes it is. You are trying to convince us that the processes, which we already understand, are NOT what’s driving biology. You postulate an invisible intangible force that’s in everything, and you tell us that we’ll burn in a hot place that we don’t think even exists, if we don’t believe you. You’re doing a very poor job of convincing us by refusing to offer any kind of proof other than tautologies.

    No…no…no you don’t have to leave science,antibiotics, surgeries, air conditioning, Internet,cell phones, radio or television behind.You can keep on with it,God does not restrict that but remember there will always be God.

    The science that gave us antibiotics, surgical techniques, air conditioning, the Internet, etc., is the very same science that says the Earth is very very old, the Big Bang is probably what happened to start things off, that biology is just chemistry, and that life has diversified via evolution and natural selection. You cannot pick and choose what science you want to use and what science disagrees with your beliefs. You reap the rewards of science in your standard of living, while suggesting that science is wrong everywhere that it intersects with your holy teachings. This is hypocritical of you, and of all religious people.

    Thank you again for your time reading this. I appreciate the chance to debate the topic. However, I want to tell you that you will not, *ever*, “save” us, because there’s nothing to save us from. So, if this is your reason for continuing the argument, it is futile. You are well advised to end the conversation and find someone that is more easily swayed by supernatural talk to convert them and “save” them in order to add points to your cosmic scorecard.

    Have a good day.

  133. #133 solomon
    June 30, 2009

    Hi everybody,
    I will not be able to comment promptly coz I’am tied up with internal audit works for the rest of this week.

  134. #134 Dan J
    June 30, 2009

    Hi Solomon,
    Thanks for the information. We look forward to hearing from you again when you have time available.

  135. #135 Greg Laden
    June 30, 2009

    Solomon, I suspect you’ll be back sooner than that. You always are.

  136. #136 solomon
    June 30, 2009

    Hope youre right Greg,
    Just can’t stand the urge.

  137. #137 Greg Laden
    June 30, 2009

    Aha! I told you!

  138. #138 solomon
    July 2, 2009

    Hi Jason,(don’t laugh at me Greg)
    Since you claim there is no hell then I would like you to answer the same question that you pose on me.[If you cannot disprove pink unicorns, then you must admit that pink unicorns exist!]But this time answer this….If you cannot disprove hell, then you must admit that hell exist!
    I did not ask you to start reading some books with assumptions.In fact anybody would start with something they did’nt know with zero assumptions.After reading it then they analyse & came to an assumptions or conclusions.Don’t simply put the blame on the ‘holy book’.Don’t just simply say there are inconsistencies , just like they are there in everyone else’s books.Proove it!Which inconsistencies you are refering & lets start a debate on it.
    I did’nt simply claim ‘my book’are consistent or right while other books or science thoughts are not.The contents of ‘my book’ speaks for itself that it is right & consistent.Tell me which part of the holy book that was written so long ago that it’s full of silliness that doesn’t hold up to the real world if youre the man of truth.
    [Human beings are intemperate.]Yes…that’s where the problem starts.As a result of human temperament a lot of inhuman acts came about…jealousy,hatred,cruel,murder, mutiny and many other.They are left with two options,to forgive & forget or to seek revenge.If they forgive & forget ,then they are the kind hearted & patient one and if they seek revenge this is when SATAN plays his role.
    All this while you don’t realize that my effort or religion have’nt prove what is right & not convincing others realizing they are wrong or fail to make an uphill climb & refuse to undertake it.
    I would like to sum up to prove that all of those pieces of knowledge a) b) c) & d) that you request.Lets start with the beginning of the Universe if thats the subject you prefer.
    Now the universe does not start with a Big Bang as you all are being fooled of.Let me tell you something thats beyond mans knowledge….
    The Earth & the heavens(planets,sun,stars,galaxies etc) are initially are all in one.With Gods power he seperates it,leaving 7 layers of the Earth & 7 layers of heaven.The stars that you see with your naked eye is the nearest havens layer to earth.Thats why traces of earths materials are found on other planets.Theories have claim that a Big Bang is not only the expansion of the universe process.It initially starts with an explosion.Now I would like to ask you some questions.
    1.How can an explosion in space, which is a vacuum ,occurs where there is no oxygen or other gasses to ignite it?
    2.What medium or material there exist before the explosion?Would the explosion starts from NOTHING?
    3.If you say the explosion starts from something,then it comes back to the same argument that there have been creations before,either the explosions happens or not.
    4.When a hand grenade explodes in air all its contents will fly away perpendicular to its centre of explosion, then why the planets in our solar system suddenly find its own orbits
    and not behaving as the hand grenade contents.
    Thats about enough for todays questions,if I go on I will spent another 3 days to finish it.
    Now does all these sounds like I’am doing a very poor job of convincing you by refusing to offer any kind of proof other than tautologies?
    The rest of your comments will be dealth with some other time.

  139. #139 Jason Thibeault
    July 2, 2009

    I’m going to stick with the quoting-selected-sections style, as the breadth of topics we’re debating lends well to this. As long as nobody is bothered by this style of argumentation, that is. Do tell me if it bothers you.

    But this time answer this….If you cannot disprove hell, then you must admit that hell exist!

    This argument does not mean what you apparently think it means. The point of saying “you can’t disprove pink unicorns” means that, despite the fact that we know there probably have never been pink unicorns, we can’t 100% disprove it because you can’t “disprove”, or prove a negative assertion, about anything. At all. Ever. It is up to the person who makes the POSITIVE assertion, to provide proof that their assertion is correct. If you say there are pink unicorns, show me one. If you say there is a “hot place your soul goes to when you die”, you’re making two claims: show me that hot place, and show me that we have souls.

    And no, saying “you’re alive” is not proof that you have a soul / Rokh / whatever else. You being alive proves only that you are alive. Showing me HOW you’re alive involves much more than assuming that it is so because some higher power willed it. And since our explanation, that chemistry is how we’re alive, seems to fit all the information we already have, and makes testable, correct predictions, we have a lot of proof on our side that you absolutely have to “do better” than, in order to overrule the evidence we have now.

    Which inconsistencies you are refering & lets start a debate on it.

    I am not interested in debating specific problems that the Qoran has in its consistency — I was merely making the point that EVERY holy book has inconsistencies, and EVERY religious adherent to each of these books is more than capable of explaining away the inconsistencies in their own religions, but incapable of understanding the inconsistencies in anyone else’s.

    If you want to know where there are inconsistencies in the Qoran, here is a good place to start: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

    If you want any further discussion of what contradictions exist in your own religion, you have merely to go to another religious person of another faith. As I am not one, I am not interested in debating these facts.

    Tell me which part of the holy book that was written so long ago that it’s full of silliness that doesn’t hold up to the real world if youre the man of truth.

    Every time we gain a new piece of knowledge about how the universe works, like for instance how far away certain stars are, or how we orbit the sun, or how the orbits of the planets work, or how down on Earth there was once a great diversity of life and 99% of the species that have lived at one time are now extinct, and how the fossil record pretty well proves Darwin’s theory, or how genetics was totally unknown when Darwin MADE that theory, etc., your book, and every other religious person’s books, get a little more wrong.

    As a result of human temperament a lot of inhuman acts came about…jealousy,hatred,cruel,murder, mutiny and many other.They are left with two options,to forgive & forget or to seek revenge.If they forgive & forget ,then they are the kind hearted & patient one and if they seek revenge this is when SATAN plays his role.

    The only part I disagree with in this, is the existence a priori of an evil entity that causes people to be intemperate in the face of injustice. We as humans all have a choice, to either be good and treat one another with respect (and therefore be “moral”), or to do those things that are part of our nature and act selfishly and evilly (and therefore be “immoral”). This is independent of any greater god or demon that probably does not exist. You do not need to postulate a god or demon to explain any of this. The “good” people act in the best interest of the survival and improvement of all humankind, and the “evil” people act selfishly and engage in those acts that you consider to have been classified as “sins” by your fictional “god”. That’s not to say that being proud, being jealous, being gluttonous, etc., does NOT have bad consequences, but those bad consequences happen here, on Earth, in real life.

    All this while you don’t realize that my effort or religion have’nt prove what is right & not convincing others realizing they are wrong or fail to make an uphill climb & refuse to undertake it.

    There is no other reason than an attempt to convince someone else you’re right, to walk into a place of learned science and tell everyone they’re going to hell if they continue to disbelieve. Have you ever noticed that scientists don’t walk into your temple and tell everyone that the world works differently than you think? This is because one has to WANT to learn the real way the world works, in order to BECOME a scientist. One cannot impose science on people who do not want to believe. Those people who do not believe, however, have proof all around them that science works, when they use electrical appliances or communicate on the internet or medicine to improve their lives, yet they refuse to understand that “life” is chemistry or else medicine wouldn’t work, that physics works the way science says otherwise electricity and the internet wouldn’t exist, etc., etc.

    The Earth & the heavens(planets,sun,stars,galaxies etc) are initially are all in one.

    Yes, the current thinking is that before the Big Bang, the whole universe, all of space, was a singularity containing all the matter within it in an infinitessimally “small” point, before that point started expanding really fast. There was no “explosion”, just a really fast “expansion”.

    With Gods power he seperates it,leaving 7 layers of the Earth & 7 layers of heaven.The stars that you see with your naked eye is the nearest havens layer to earth.Thats why traces of earths materials are found on other planets.

    This is provably wrong — the Earth has an inner core, an outer core, a mantle, and a crust. And I’ll even spot you the atmosphere. That means, the Earth has either four or five layers. Meanwhile, the entire universe is visible if you have instruments that can look hard enough. What says that our ability to see with our naked eye constitutes a “layer” of the universe? This is egotistical of us, believing that those things which are within the scope of what we can see, hear and taste are more “natural” and therefore “unique”.

    Therefore, what you think God did, didn’t happen. And since it didn’t happen the way you think it did, does God not exist either? This is likely. But it is not the ONLY reason God probably doesn’t exist.

    Theories have claim that a Big Bang is not only the expansion of the universe process.It initially starts with an explosion.

    Whose theories? The computer generated graphics that are often used to explain it, are wrong. Ask any scientist if the Big Bang was an actual explosion. Think of it more like someone taking a deflated balloon, then inflating it. Therefore, all your questions are invalid. I agree that explosions in space work much differently than they do in an atmosphere, but that’s neither here nor there, since that’s not how the theory explains it. You are attacking a strawman, and assuming that an “excluded middle” proves God must exist, and that is wrong. The choice is not “EITHER A || B” here. Even if you knock down a small piece of science, that doesn’t mean all of science is wrong and therefore God exists — it just means that small piece of science needs to be replaced with something that works and is more accurate and actually explains things and makes testable predictions that don’t get proven wrong. This is how science improves itself as the study of how the universe actually works.

    Now does all these sounds like I’am doing a very poor job of convincing you by refusing to offer any kind of proof other than tautologies?

    I’m sorry, but yes, you are doing a poor job. You’ve made an effort here, but it is not sufficient, because you do not have an understanding of how the science presently attempts to explain the theory to begin with, so you are attacking but a caricature of it. And this caricature of science was given to you either by other religious adherents, or by lazy journalists or bad television shows that get the science wrong.

    Please, keep trying, though. And you’d be well advised to watch some of the video links in this discussion so that you understand what it is we’re ACTUALLY saying about the Big Bang, about evolution, about just about everything that goes against your beliefs, that way you can argue with us about the actual evidence and what brought us to believe what we believe.

    Remember, science is *all* about evidence. Anything you say must be proven or else it is considered worthless. Because religions consist mostly of big books of unprovable assertions, that is why scientists generally ignore them until their adherents get up in our faces.

  140. #140 Dan
    July 2, 2009

    I have heard there are a lot of pink unicorns in hell, though.

  141. #141 Dan J
    July 3, 2009

    “The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.”

    Solomon, I think that we have difficulties in this conversation due to your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, particularly what is often referred to as scientific method.

    Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (ابو علي، حسن بن حسن بن الهيثم), frequently called Alhazen, developed a scientific method nearly one thousand years ago (similar to the modern scientific method) which used these procedures:

    1. Explicit statement of a problem, tied to observation and to proof by experiment
    2. Testing and/or criticism of a hypothesis using experimentation
    3. Interpretation of data and formulation of a conclusion using mathematics
    4. The publication of the findings

    The method you seem to be proposing again and again is more along the lines of “The Koran says X, so that is what must be true.”

    Do you see why we seem to be getting nowhere in our discussion?

  142. #142 solomon
    July 21, 2009

    Hi I’am back Jason,
    I’am not bothered at all by your style of putting things.If you already know that there probably have never been pink unicorns, then why do you ask to disprove its existence at the first place?
    You have no evidence at all saying us being alive due to chemical reaction alone.Those are only guessing.Let say I supply you with all the chemicals found on earth,a lump of plastercene or a jelly blob.Now start mixing the chemicals with the plastercene or the jelly.Now can you just make the body just crawl on its belly?Even a human could not do that, how can you expect nature to do it on its own?
    You said[your book, and every other religious person's books, get a little more wrong.]Tell me which part of the Qoran get a little more wrong?You are talking about
    pieces of knowledge humans have gained regarding the universe, how the orbit works or how diversity of life there is.There is nothing wrong with that,they can keep on searching.But after finding its systems, principles does it not occur to one mind how such a wondrous thing could have happen?Going on and on for billions of years without a tiny bit of error?Who could have such a magnificient control of those?Only a ‘stone’ heart will deny some powerfull hands is in control of that.{‘stone’ heart is harder than the normal stone.Even the stone allows water to flow on its surface and allows spring water to rise upon the crevices of its body }
    [the "evil" people act selfishly and engage in those acts that you consider to have been classified as "sins" by your fictional "god".]You did mention evil, but you did not know where it came from.Thats what God warn us,the evil are footsteps outlined by Satan,but you did’nt feel/realize it coz you have been following his footsteps all along.[That's not to say that being proud, being jealous, being gluttonous, etc., does NOT have bad consequences]If you are not bullshiting by saying this,everyday there are countless cases of murder due to hatred or jealousy.
    [There is no other reason than an attempt to convince someone else you're right, to walk into a place of learned science and tell everyone they're going to hell if they continue to disbelieve]Thats the way how you put it.Its not that straighforward as it seems.True religion is based on reasoning,thingking,analysing & wondering.They are bound to go to hell after finding the truth but continue to shut their minds out.Ther is also two kinds of scientist.One is they try to proove what is being told by God thru science & the other one who try other ways thru science to disprove Gods words which they will never succeed.
    [the whole universe, all of space, was a singularity]You see how Gods words is true.How can Mohammad obtain this knowledge?
    [That means, the Earth has either four or five layers]
    The earth have seven layers.1)Inner core 2)Outer core 3)D’ layer 4)Lower mantle 5)Transition region 6)Shallow mantle 7)Crust. Well the rest of your comments will be dealth later

  143. #143 solomon
    November 26, 2009

    Hi
    I’am about to make a comeback