Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Johnson]

I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that religion isn't the doorway to ignorance. It hasn't happened yet. Gene is pretty patient though. Let me tell you, my stomach turned when the dude I'm chilling with out here proceeded to explain to me how important it was to his religion (Catholic) and to Christians in general, that the California constitution needed to be amended to outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman.... because. 

[mikehz]

Simply stating that something is a s"sensible belief" really doesn't quite do it. One must say why it is sensible.

God (Christian or Muslim) cannot be detected with any of the senses. Therefore, the idea of God, in a very real way, is non-scenically.

[The Muslim Agorist]

outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman. 

This issue totally pisses me off because no one local gets where I'm coming from. I'm against gay marriage and people in CA act like this is some kind of blasphemy... but I'm just as against straight marriage. People keep sayings "it's about equal rights" but it's not. It's about homosexuals fighting to be issued the same marriage licenses as heterosexuals. No one should be issued marriage LICENSES! If you need a license it's a privilege not a right. They should be drafting and and signing private marriage CONTRACTS! All contracts, between whatever parties, should be binding like any other business contract. The way I see it voting to issue state marriage licenses to homosexuals does not liberate homosexual marriage, it merely binds it to the same state regulations the heterosexuals currently suffer from.

And you know what really pisses me off about this issue... all these liberal soft heads gush about equal rights for everyone, and don't regulate morality... blah blah blah... but watch them turn coats when I say... Fine, you want gay marriage... I want polygamy. Their hypocrisy is immediately apparent. I don't know a lot of polygamists. I actually know a lot more polygamist pagans than Muslims. But in both cases the second spouse does not enjoy the same protection under the law as the first spouse. EVERY argument in favor of gay marriage can be used in favor of plural marriage... but these liberal pinkos turn tail and run as soon as I even suggest it. The solution is also the same... private contracts, not state licenses.

[John Shaw]

You shouldn't address gay marriage then. Just say: "I'm against all government marriage." And leave it at that. 

[Johnson]

While I agree with your views on marriage being shit - and licensing with the state and all that.

Yeah, I'm still for equal rights. If they want to fuck themselves over by signing a contract with the state - they should be able to do that just the same as straight folk.

[HOO-HAA]

I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that religion isn't the doorway to ignorance. It hasn't happened yet.

It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.

If you're looking at evidence alone, it's farily clear that the meaphysical elements of religion exist only in the heads of its respective followers. Any evidence I've EVER been presented with to prove religion is very, very shaky.

My test is always as to whether I would accept that quality of evidence for proving anything else - if not, why would I accept it to prove god?

It seems, when it comes to discussing religion, the rules change regarding proof for many people.

However, I think that it's important that we are able to discuss these things as calmly as possible and thank both Gene and MA for doing such with me, on this thread.

I've little more to add, at this point except to agree that this:

Let me tell you, my stomach turned when the dude I'm chilling with out here proceeded to explain to me how important it was to his religion (Catholic) and to Christians in general, that the California constitution needed to be amended to outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman.... because. 

... is the unfortunate reality of religion at its very darkest, yet seeminlgy (if you take into account what the scriptures say on the matter) purest form.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Proof, proof, proof...

Here's a quote from the website "Answers In Genesis"...

"Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

In the past I have posted the "interpretation" of the evidence that I believe to be true.  There are many examples.  One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular.

Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...

[HOO-HAA]

Gene, proof is important when you claim anything metaphysical to be true - surely you believe that?

Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...

The 'young earth' debate is one that is been raging for quite some time. I'm no scientist, so it's not always something I feel qualified to get involved in.

However, many scientists make it their business to prvide counter-arguments against young earth theories. Here's one I plucked from the net (I believe your theory is countered under 'evidence 6'?)

http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:

Young-earth "proof" #5: The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.
(Dr. Hilpman vs. Dr. Hovind, June 15, 1992; the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri)
Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.

A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
(Brush, 1983, p.78)
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!

It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html

Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance.

If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.

To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:

Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance. If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.
To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.

Ok… so I didn’t read it… I find the Young Earth crowd kinda kooky… but I think I see your point. It seems to you’ve made the same mistake… If a point in one theological model is unacceptable to you (In this case the Biblical sanctions of violence) that doesn’t automatically prove god doesn’t exist. It simply places a question over that small piece of theological evidence. To prove God doesn’t exist, you would be best to provide evidence for God’s nonexistence, not disprove each theological model piece by piece.

Personally I’m an evolution agnostic. I think the mutation of species has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting… but Darwinism does not address biogenesis. At the most it agrees with my theological model, that biological life came from some kind of water/clay/mud muck.

Just as you can present one kooky theological perspective, I can present another kooky scientific perspective... This road is ultimately circular… which is why I insist that Atheism is itself a theological model. And proving a theological model to another person is exceptionally difficult because in the dichotomy of argumentation each party is incentivized not to accept the opponents evidence… The acceptance or rejection of any model has to come from the person’s own reasoning, not from someone else’s.

Gene do you have a picture you could post... I'd like to make up some campaign signs.

[HOO-HAA]

You make a good point regarding atheism, of course, MA - but I'm not sure I ever stated that I can prove the non-existance of god.

In fact, from an earlier post of mine:

It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.

In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.

What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.

But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia

[Rillion]

Personally I’m an evolution agnostic. I think the mutation of species has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting… but Darwinism does not address biogenesis. At the most it agrees with my theological model, that biological life came from some kind of water/clay/mud muck.

Personally I'm a gravity agnostic.  I think the attraction of physical objects to objects with greater mass has plenty of evidence worth analyzing and even accepting....but Newtonism does not address cosmology.  At most it agrees with my theological model, that existence came into being through magic.

If you can process how many things are wrong with my statement, then you will understand how many are wrong with yours. 

[The Muslim Agorist]

You make a good point regarding atheism, of course, MA - but I'm not sure I ever stated that I can prove the nonexistence of god.

In fact, from an earlier post of mine:

It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ Allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.

There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ Allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.

In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.

What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ Allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.

But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia

Well... than lets take another step back. I wasn't trying to prove that god does exist, which I've discussed in previous threads. In this thread my first point has been that proving God's existence or non existence is not relevant to Gene's thesis.

If Gene's a FSPer and he's game I think that would be a blast once we're both out there... no delusions of having any change of winning though... I think it would be an excellent way to leverage publicity toward spreading the message.

[Prometheus]

 ...One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular....

Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...

The Moon is receding at a rate of 38 millimeters per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#History_of_observations_and_measurements

Over a period of 4.5 billion years it would recede 171,000 kilometers.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=RQ5&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=(4.5+billion+times+38+millimeters)+in+kilometers&spell=1

The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km. So the moon was 213,400 km 4.5 billion years ago.

So the moon has existed for the entire history of Earth. The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

[Russell Griswold]

The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Hahahahaha! 

[ChristianAnarchist]

 ...One I use over and over about my question about the age of the universe is the earth/moon system.  This is a simple question that has to do with the orbital decay of our moon over time and if you simply take the decay rate times the number of years this system is supposed to be in existence, you come up with a problem.  So if this earth/moon system could not have existed beyond a set number of years ago (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) then you need to come up with another way the system could have come into existence.  The three choices seem to be binary formation (seems impossible in light of the above), capture, or ejection.  Neither capture or ejection seem to be physically possible with a resulting orbital path which is almost circular....

Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...

The Moon is receding at a rate of 38 millimeters per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#History_of_observations_and_measurements

Over a period of 4.5 billion years it would recede 171,000 kilometers.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=RQ5&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=(4.5+billion+times+38+millimeters)+in+kilometers&spell=1

The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km. So the moon was 213,400 km 4.5 billion years ago.

So the moon has existed for the entire history of Earth. The "Answers in Genesis" site has the recession rate wrong. How convenient.

Of course young Earth creationist never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. They never change their arguments in light of evidence. Instead of debating I'm just going to provide a link that debunks most of their claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

You see I not only "question" the writings of the Bible and weigh what I read against my own experiences and knowledge, I "question" pretty much everything.  Now your  link above certainly seems to have an "answer" to the problem but then you see that certain questions remain.  The "scientist" of course has a presupposition that he uses to interpret his observations.  I question the "decay rates" for starters.  When NASA first measured the actual decay rates after the Apollo mission left a mirror on the moon's surface for laser reflection, they reported larger rates than they are currently using.  Why the change?  Did they discover that the "rates" were inconsistent with their "religion"?  Did they have to "recalibrate" their measuring equipment to help their measurements to agree with their presupposition??  Oh, no!!! Scientists would NEVER do that !!!   They are upright guys with pocket protectors and they don't have any idea on how to falsify data.  Well I personally know of a just such a case at UNR's physics department.  The "scientist" was asked to leave and he simply got another position at another university.  Yeah, the other university knew about his falsification of data but didn't care because he was a well-known scientist with several publications to his name...

In checking some of the arguments against a shorter lifespan of the universe I came across the following:  "In 2001, scientists working with the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile applied the radioactive dating technique to an old star in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The researchers studied the isotope uranium 238, whose nucleus contains 92 protons and 146 neutrons. The scientists knew how much uranium the star must have had when it formed, and they measured how much it has now. They then applied their knowledge of decay rates to calculate the age of the star. The most likely age of the star is 12.5 billion years, so the universe is probably older than that. Measurements of the ages of many old stars using another element, thorium, gave similar results.

Contributor: Joel R. Primack, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz."

If you note the one "telling" statement "The scientists knew how much uranium the star MUST have had when it formed...".   So you see what is so common in "science".  They state something as "fact" when it is not necessarily so.  If they have PROOF of the amount of uranium then there is no need for the qualifier "MUST".  Of course they can NEVER KNOW because they were not there to measure the amount when the star was "born".  They can SPECULATE what it should have been IF their THEORY regarding star genesis is CORRECT...

This is exactly why I don't trust your "high priests" of the "science" cult as they are just as inaccurate or downright deceptive as others.  Since I cannot duplicate their "science" due to lack of resources as well as lack of schooling in some of these areas, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. 

Not to mention my distrust of "science" with regard to "global warming".  I was told in high school that all the best "science" was indicating the perils of a coming "ice age" brought on by (you guessed it) our use of fossil fuels.  These same "scientists" are now trying the same old song with different lyrics.  They were also telling us how we were using petroleum products at a rate that would exhaust the worlds supply by the 1990's!  Well guess what?  It's 2008 and were swimming in crude.  There are more fields discovered every day and if we would drill on the north slope we would have enough for many years (but the "snail darter" wouldn't like it...)